Washington University in St. Louis
Washington University Open Scholarship
Arts & Sciences Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Arts & Sciences
Summer 8-2016
An Epic Hydrography: Riverine Geography in the
Argonautika of Apollonios Rhodios
Joseph R. Morgan II
Washington University in St. Louis
Follow this and additional works at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/art_sci_etds
Part of the Classical Literature and Philology Commons
Recommended Citation
Morgan, Joseph R. II, "An Epic Hydrography: Riverine Geography in the Argonautika of Apollonios Rhodios" (2016). Arts & Sciences
Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 819.
http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/art_sci_etds/819
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Arts & Sciences at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Arts & Sciences Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS
Department of Classics
An Epic Hydrography:
Riverine Geography in the Argonautika of Apollonios Rhodios
by
Joseph Railton Morgan II
A thesis presented to the
Graduate School of Arts & Sciences
of Washington University in
partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree
of Master of Arts
August 2016
St. Louis, Missouri
© 2016, Joseph Railton Morgan II
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Apollonios and Geography ................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 A Model for the Analysis of Geographical Description ................................................................... 12
2. Dilating the Lens of Descriptive Geography ............................................................................ 26
2.1 Kolkhis: Introducing the River as a Descriptive Framework ........................................................... 26
2.2 Istros: Historicizing Geography ........................................................................................................ 38
3. Two Approaches to Riverine Itineraries ................................................................................... 52
3.1 Istros: Cruising the Continent ........................................................................................................... 52
3.2 Eridanos: Knowledge, Perspective, and the Loss of Agency ........................................................... 63
4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 68
Works Cited .................................................................................................................................. 71
ii
Acknowledgements
Many are the debts a student incurs in developing and diligently testing the germ of his
independent thought. It is the mark of an institution truly invested in mentorship when the burden
of these debts sits no more heavily on the young scholar’s shoulders than the weight of the
laurels he earns in the undertaking: he exults in such debts, and does not shrink from due
expressions of gratitude. I would like here to boast the magnitude of my own debts, so that my
reader may recognize in it them the generous efforts of my several benefactors.
I reserve pride of place for Dr. William Bubelis, my primary advisor in the composition
of this thesis and my training as an ancient historian. His experience and patient guidance have
strengthened my resolve in the face of many an interpretive problem, and he was quick to
identify potential pitfalls and dead-ends in the great labyrinth of scholarship beneath the
foundations of my own argument. Many a bright August afternoon faded to evening over Umrath
as we discussed the relative merits of various historical comparanda and honed the elements of
my spatial analysis down to a comprehensible method. The project quickly developed into a
thesis neither of us was quite expecting as gaps were gradually identified and deemed suitable to
address.
I also owe many thanks to my two readers, Dr. Cathy Keane and Dr. Roshan Abraham,
whose incisive critiques proved vital to rendering several sections of this thesis comprehensible
to a broader audience. I have Dr. Keane to thank also for more general suggestions regarding
clarity of argumentation. Much of the prose herein owes something to her thorough stylistic
critique. It was Dr. Abraham who first brought to my attention several seminal works of the
“spatial turn”, the scholarly movement most responsible for shaping my analytical methodology
in this thesis, and to which I hope to have contributed in some small way hereby.
iii
Likewise to Dr. Karen Acton I owe a thousand thanks, both for her support as a mentor
and for the accommodations she made to my responsibilities as a TA in the most trying hours of
this thesis’ composition and defense. Even in her insistence that I consider the success of this
thesis the highest of my priorities, she demonstrated the importance of her students among her
many responsibilities by making the time to cover for my absence. This particular quality of hers
I shall strive always to emulate.
In addition to this wealth of generous support from members of the faculty of the Classics
Department at Washington University in St. Louis, I cannot go without paying homage to the
very wellspring of our department’s cheer and collegiate support, Cathy Marler, who possesses
that essential blend of exact knowledge of the university’s inner workings, tremendous
administrative skill, and (seemingly) boundless enthusiasm that elevates her to a higher plane of
existence in the eyes of the students and faculty who depend on her. Long may she reign!
Joseph Morgan
St. Louis, August 2016
iv
FOR MY PARENTS
TO WHOM I OWE ALL THIS AND MORE
v
1. Introduction
1.1 Apollonios and Geography
This thesis is a study of place, path, and word. More narrowly conceived, it demonstrates
the several ways that these elements align to constitute spatial representation in an ancient
literary text. The text under examination—Apollonios Rhodios’ Argonautika—narrates the
voyage of a heroic crew through space and time.1 This itinerant plot naturally commends the epic
to a study of the dynamics of travel and its articulation in poetic form. So expansive are the
horizons glimpsed in this work, however, that the researcher might easily founder in the mire of
spatial detail pervading a text that is otherwise remarkably succinct in comparison to its Archaic
precursors.2 Argonautika’s rich spatial texture rewards concentrated geographical analysis,
which has long been a fixture of Apollonian scholarship. Geography in Apollonios has been
treated from various perspectives employing a diverse array of methodologies, including literarycritical approaches to the thematic valence of the Argonautic itineraries, attempts at identifying
the poet’s sources through the geography of his epic, and narratological studies of Apollonios’
descriptive technique.3 Despite this frequent treatment of Apollonian geography, however, there
remains a gap in the understanding of just how this geography is constructed and articulated in
1
The text of the Argonautika employed for this study is Vian’s Budé edition, currently the most widely accepted
edition of the epic. All translations from the Greek herein are my own.
2
The text of the Argonautika runs some 5835 lines: brief in comparison to the Iliad (15,000+) and Odyssey
(12,000+), but closer in length to the other poems of the Epic Cycle, if one trusts figures extrapolated from the bookcounts related in Proclus’ Chrestomatheia. Narration of the journeys to and from Kolkhis in the Argonautika
consumes a great part of this sum. For sequences of prolonged travel narrative, see the voyage to Lemnos (1.519608), Phineus’ prescriptive itinerary and the flight of the Boreads (2.164-530), the navigation of the Symplegades
(2.531-647), the Euxine itinerary (2.648-719, 899-1029, 1231-1285), the theft of the Fleece and escape from Kolkhis
(4.6-210), the Istros itinerary (4.211-302), the voyage from the Adriatic to Aiaia (4.507-658), the western
wanderings (4.753-981), the Libyan wanderings (4.1223-1619), and the voyage through the Aegean (4.1620-1772).
3
See Delage 1930, Pearson 1938, Van Paasen 1957, Elliger 1975, Fusillo 1985, Williams 1991, Harder 1994, Clare
2002, Meyer 2008, and Danek 2009 for studies of geographical space in the Argonautika.
1
the text. In other words, what is lacking is a study of the techniques of Apollonian geographical
description, conducted for its own sake.4 In this study I endeavor to treat the nuts and bolts of
Apollonian geographical description from a primarily narratological perspective, drawing on
recent developments in the field achieved through the application of spatial theory and
narratology to classical literature.
The study of descriptive modes adopted in antiquity for the representation of space in
diverse contexts has yielded insights of significance not only to the history of literature, but also
to the history of ancient thought. The various characteristics of a text’s mode of spatial
description inform the study of literary space as a cultural artifact. Hence insights drawn from an
examination of descriptive modes attested in the Argonautika may be used to explore broader
cultural and intellectual paradigms of the epic’s compositional context. This study focuses in
particular on a striking feature of spatial description in the Argonautika, namely the integration
of multiple descriptive standpoints and focalizations into the representation of specific regions
along the path of the Argo and a correlation between these multidimensional representations and
the rivers that form critical segments of this route. Through his application of this
multidimensional approach to river-oriented descriptions, Apollonios extends the geographical
purview of his epic to encompass vast swaths of continental territory. This thesis will proceed to
demonstrate that the poet modulates the dimensions of space covered at key points in the
narrative, shifting the reader’s viewpoint into and out of alignment with that of the Argonauts to
diverse thematic effect.
The implications of this descriptive strategy in the history of literature are paralleled by
corresponding implications for the history of ancient geography. This study thus engages with a
4
Thalmann 2011 treats Apollonios’ construction of space as a cultural artifact, and thus comes closest to the
approach that I advocate here.
2
neglected chapter in the history of geographical thought, namely its manifestation in the literary
efflorescence of Early Hellenistic Alexandria under Ptolemy II (r. 282-246) and III (r. 246-221).
The bounds of this deficit align roughly with conventional chronological and generic divisions.5
Geographical developments of the late 4th/early 3rd centuries BCE have historically been treated
in the form of a narrative of rapid advances in empirical knowledge stemming from Alexander’s
conquests and the consequent systematic reappraisal of earlier speculative geographies evinced
in the fragments of Dikaiarchos, Eratosthenes, and their successors, the first scientific
geographers.6 Eratosthenes (276-194) in particular pioneered the comprehensive description of
the earth’s surface by a systematic division of the inhabited world into regions, termed
sphragides, and attendant comment on the major physical features that delineate and occupy
each region. This comprehensive approach to geography synthesized a holistic verbal model of
the earth from distinct traditions of geographical discourse and set the precedent for the scope
and methodology of serious geographical discourse for centuries to come.7
The enduring effects of this historical trend on the development of geography as a science
have tended to eclipse corresponding repercussions in the content and structural features of
descriptive geography as an element of non-scientific literature. This oversight betrays the
5
In the ages prior to the development of scientifically accurate systems of collecting and reproducing geographical
information (via aircraft and satellite surveillance) advances were made in geography through both the collection of
verbally-transmitted topographical data and the articulation of geographical models produced by analysis of this data
as well as by the informed speculation of natural philosophers. Consequently, the history of geography focuses
especially on periods characterized by a surfeit of such advances. The period under examination in this study falls
between spikes in geographical advances. In the decades preceding Apollonios Rhodios’ floruit in the middle
decades of the third century BCE came a flood of fresh topographical data derived from the campaigns of Alexander
the Great in the Balkans, Anatolia, the Levant, North Africa, Mesopotamia, Central Asia, and India, discussed by
Thomson 1948, Bunbury 1959, Dueck 2012, Bucciantini 2015, and Gehrke 2015. Following Apollonios there arose
the innovative geographical models of Eratosthenes and his critic Hipparchos. The intervening period is thus
overshadowed by these two great leaps forward, a pattern this study seeks to redress. A corresponding gap appears
in the study of geography’s manifestation in the literary record, as prose genres grew to eclipse poetic articulations
of geographical frameworks.
6
For comprehensive surveys built upon scholarship undertaken at the close of the nineteenth century that attempt a
diachronic narrative of developments in Classical geographical thought, see Thomson 1948 and Bunbury 1959.
7
The tradition of Eratosthenes and his successors is preserved in large part by the Augustan geographer Strabo,
whose colossal work is the lone survival from this once prolific scholarly movement.
3
narrow scope of the history of geography as it was conducted through the mid-20th century.
Formerly the topic was anachronistically treated as the history of a discipline, addressing
geography as an element of literature only when necessary for determining the extent of
geographical knowledge prior to the genesis of scientific geography. Hence surveys of ancient
geography commonly begin with an introductory chapter on “Homeric geography” that produces
a sketch of geographical thought in the Early Archaic Period, drawing primarily on the Homeric
poems and (to a lesser extent) the Hesiodic corpus. 8 Geographical analyses of Hellenistic
literature have thus focused primarily on the identification of geographical source-texts reflected
in a given piece of literature and largely ignore the contributions of such works of fiction
themselves to geography broadly defined, that is, not only the raw data generated by
geographical inquiry, but also the various modes of conceptualizing, representing, and
transmitting space.9
I approach this conceptual gap from a literary perspective. Literary evidence constitutes
the most extensive source of geographical formulations from antiquity.10 That is not to say that
our only legitimate source of ancient geographical thought is literary. There is also a body of
epigraphic and cartographical evidence, though none particularly illuminating in regard to the
period and topic under consideration. The prominence of textual evidence in the historical record
of geographical knowledge is due in large part to the difficulties hindering the transmission and
promulgation of visuals such as maps and diagrams over successive periods. The diversity of
8
e.g. Thomson 1948, pp. 19-27 and Bunbury 1959, pp. 31-84. These surveys are further flawed in a specific aspect
of their content, namely the inclusion of maps illustrating the world-views of individual periods and authors. This
visual content is commendable as a supplementary aid to the reader’s understanding of specific elements of the
geographical frameworks treated in these surveys. However, these graphics too readily induce the reader to project
these modern reconstructions onto the ancient textual evidence where no visual component remains or indeed may
ever have existed. These graphic reconstructions must be approached with caution lest they eclipse the
overwhelmingly verbal nature of ancient geographical thought.
9
cf. Meyer 2008, pp. 275-276. For a revised approach to the development of ancient geographical thought broadly
defined, see Janni 1984.
10
Romm 1992 argues for the treatment of ancient geographical thought as a predominantly literary phenomenon.
4
geographical frameworks evinced in the literary tradition corresponds with the diversity of the
Classical tradition itself. Temporally, the extant record of ancient geographical thought emerges
with the birth of literature itself in the Homeric epics and persists as a fixture of both poetry and
prose through the end of Antiquity. Geographers performed geographical readings of the
Homeric epics from the earliest days of the ancient scholarly tradition. Indeed, even before the
epics were subjected to scholarly scrutiny at Alexandria, ancients localized their geographical
frameworks in the physical world (a process encouraged by Greek protocolonial interests
contemporaneous with the approximate dates of the obscure process of the Homeric epics’
textualization circa 700 BCE).11 Furthermore, ancient writers were engaged—whether
consciously or unconsciously—in a process of geographical documentation, description, and
reformulation throughout an extensive array of genres.
These writers composed works presenting complex spatial frameworks intended to
perform a range of functions. Internal geographies ground epic plots, contextualize historical
narratives, and serve as a basis for argumentation in numerous genres. Spatial frameworks
consequently transcend the distinction between fiction and nonfiction, a distinction anachronistic
to the ancients and unsuited to the analysis of geographical description in epic.12 To appreciate
the development of this tradition, the historian of ancient geography must scrutinize its totality.
The means and mode of spatial representation in textual form are as vital to the study of
geography as the scientific accumulation and plotting of topographical data.
The perspective taken by a narrator in surveying the range of space accessible to
description couches the details relayed by this description in a particular way that bears thematic
11
For this phenomenon, see Malkin 1998, Dougherty 2001, and Hartog 2001.
I hope to demonstrate in this study that “fictional” space is just as significant to the development of geographical
discourse as more sober prose treatises, in response to the claim leveled by Dueck 2012, p. 28, that geographical
elements of verse narratives “poetry was the main issue, and geographical traces highlighted decoration, served as
ornamentation and supplied information only as a byproduct.”
12
5
significance in a narrative context. For the purposes of this study, I use the term “perspective” to
denote both the descriptive standpoint and the view it affords. Writers have multiple perspectives
at their disposal through which they might conceive of and describe space. One need only
imagine taking a particular standpoint within the spatial confines of a narrative to begin
describing the shape of this space. Thus the ability to conceive of a given standpoint and its
attendant view is critical to the articulation of a narrative’s internal geography. Analysis of the
perspectives adopted by a particular writer at specific points in a narrative demonstrates patterns
of reliance upon specific perspectives in certain contexts. These patterns are useful indices of a
writer’s capacity for spatial description. Additionally, when compared to studies of descriptive
strategies deployed elsewhere in classical literature, these patterns elucidate aspects of a writer’s
relationship to predecessors and contemporaries engaged in this practice.
The focalization of a given description is an equally informative narratological element in
the study of a writer’s descriptive strategy and corresponding concept of space. Subsequent to
adopting a particular descriptive standpoint, the narrator chooses an organizational principle for
the ensuing description. Because verbal descriptions are limited by the linear nature of a text, this
organizational principle commonly takes the form of a hypothetical (or actual) route through
space. The narratological device through which a narrator accesses the points described on this
route is the description’s focalization. To complicate the matter, the relationship between
descriptive perspective and focalization is not fixed. It may shift as one or both of these elements
change over the course of the description. Apollonios exploits this capacity for shifting
perspective and focalization to achieve a multidimensional internal geography.
Owing to the flexibility of this modular descriptive strategy, the Argonautika provides
some of the most striking examples of Hellenistic innovation in the area of geographical exegesis
6
as an element of epic narration. The sheer quantity of narrative devoted to descriptions of the
Argo’s voyage through space offers a comprehensive demonstration of the poet’s descriptive
finesse. Three of the four books into which this epic is divided narrate the mythical voyage of
Jason and his companions beyond the edges of the oikoumene, supplementing the basic itinerary
with a tremendous amount of topographical detail and scholarly comment.13 The epic supplies a
critical mass of geographical data and descriptive modes requisite for the study of Apollonios’
conceptualization of space and its relation to those of other writers.
The spatial framework of Apollonios’ Argonautika is a paradox of sorts. On the one hand
the poet describes segments of the Argo’s route with striking precision, supplementing the epic’s
comprehensive itinerary with detailed comments on travel time, relative distances, and
navigational peculiarities.14 Apollonius exploits numerous narratological devices from the toolkit
of contemporary geographical literature so as to construct a veristic portrayal of the way humans
perceive, conceptualize, and transmit spatial information. On the other hand, he preserves (and
innovates) a corresponding set of fantastical features coloring the primordial landscape traversed
by the Argo.15 The relationship between multidimensional spatial descriptions and the fantastical
features of this epic environment provides a rich vein of material for the study of a critical
moment in the development of ancient geography.
13
I use the word oikoumene throughout this study to refer to what Greeks, beginning with Herodotos in the late 5th
century BCE, envisioned as the zone of human habitation that extended to the limits of their geographical
knowledge, limits which they variously associated with infinite bodies of water and inhospitable wastelands.
14
In one foundational survey of the history of ancient geography, the Argonautika is likened to a geographical
treatise in its precise articulation of topographical detail (Bunbury 1959, p. 21).
15
While the fantastical element features throughout the poem, it is particularly concentrated in Book 4. This
juxtaposition of the fantastical with the scientific broaches the question of poetic intent. cf. Delage 1930, pp. 7-9,
who posits a didactic motive, Herter 1973, p. 42, who associates this dynamic with the aetiological interests of the
Alexandrian poets, and Meyer 2008, pp. 273-275, who claims that “judging Apollonius as a geographer depends on
preconceptions about the science of geography on the one hand and aesthetic criteria on the other. Geography seeks
to represent nature in a manner faithful to reality whereas poetry calls for freedom in the handling of the material
and a concept of aesthetic unity.”
7
In the Argonautika, Apollonios transmitted not only a text, but also a compositional
methodology. The poet reveals his epic world—the “fabula space”16 of the Argonautika—
piecemeal throughout the narrative, focalized from various reference-points and described from a
number of different perspectives.17 Precisely where and how Apollonios chooses to supply this
spatial information varies in accordance with the manifold functions served by spatial description
in Apollonian verse.18 Therefore, analysis of the text for evidence of the compositional tools and
strategies with which Apollonios constructed the spatial framework of his heroes’ journey
provides a glimpse into the creative genius of no less prominent a figure in the Alexandrian
intellectual climate than the Head of the Library, a post which Apollonios passed down to
Eratosthenes during the reign of Ptolemy III (246-222). Though Apollonios may serve as but one
data point in the study of geographical discourse circulating in the Library during the last quarter
of the third century, his contribution is particularly significant because it treats geography in epic
form, defining the oikoumene with the narrative of a mythical ship rather than the system of
linear divisions adopted by Eratosthenes. In this respect, the descriptive strategies employed by
Apollonios in the articulation of the Argo myth are as relevant to the development of
geographical discourse in Alexandria as the scientific accomplishments of Eratosthenes.19
Discussion will therefore turn here to a brief examination of the tradition of the Argo myth prior
to Apollonios and will proceed thence to a treatment of geographical trends in the context of
Early Hellenistic Alexandria.
16
De Jong 2012, pp. 1-18 defines “Fabula space” as the spatial context in which a narrative occurs. It includes not
only those spatial elements explicitly described (this narrower category is termed “story space”) but also elements of
the framework left unstated.
17
cf. Meyer 2008, p. 275: “The quality of Apollonius’ geography is manifest in that he describes with precision not
only people in a landscape but also the subjective perception of physical space.”
18
For a brief survey of the functions performed by spatial description in Apollonios’ work, see Klooster 2012, pp.
66-75. Klooster’s analysis follows the terminology outlined in de Jong 2012, pp. 1-18.
19
I use the term “linear” throughout this paper to convey the sense of a line, that is, an unbroken succession of
points traced in two directions through space. I do not mean to convey a sense of directness. Eratosthenes carves his
model of the oikoumene into irregular polygons (his sphragides) with quite crooked lines.
8
The myth of Jason’s quest for the Golden Fleece is geographically articulated as the
voyage of the Argo in the mythological tradition prior to Apollonios. The path of this ship and
the trials distributed along it are therefore central to any discussion of the myth in the literary
tradition. The return voyage in this tradition is of particular interest to the reader of Apollonios,
as this sequence undergoes the most dramatic alterations to the route of the Argo.20 When
compared to prior manifestations of this mythical voyage, the implications of Apollonios’
particular choice of route come to the fore.
The earliest attestation of the voyage corresponds with the birth of the literary tradition in
the Homeric epics. Kirke refers to the Argonautic navigation of the Planktai as an element of the
itinerary she provides for Odysseus and his attentive crew upon their return from the shores of
Okeanos:21
οἴη δὴ κείνη γε παρέπλω ποντοπόρος νηῦς,
Ἀργὼ πᾶσι µέλουσα, παρ᾽ Αἰήταο πλέουσα.
καὶ νύ κε τὴν ἔνθ᾽ ὦκα βάλεν µεγάλας ποτὶ πέτρας,
ἀλλ᾽ Ἥρη παρέπεµψεν, ἐπεὶ φίλος ἦεν Ἰήσων.
But one seafaring ship has sailed through,
Argo renowned among all, sailing from Aietes.
Even now the swell would have thrown her upon the great rocks,
But Hera sent her through, since Jason was dear to her (Od. 12. 69-72).
The allusive nature of this attestation frustrates any attempt at establishing a precise itinerary to
serve as a baseline for comparison with later iterations.22 However, a few significant features of
20
Apollonios’ account of the outbound voyage to Kolkhis parallels that which is attested in earlier sources, though it
contains significantly more detail regarding the landmarks that demarcate the route. Indeed, the tradition of the
outbound itinerary remains remarkably consistent throughout successive manifestations in antiquity.
21
It is unclear whether the Homeric Planktai correspond to the Symplegades of later writers. Apollonios treats the
two sets of rocks as distinct entities, placing the Symplegades at the Bosporus and the Planktai among the Western
Wanderings.
22
The impossibility of this approach does, however, forestall a misleading assumption of the type so often elicited
by the primacy of the Homeric epics in the Greek literary tradition. It would be mistaken to assume that the version
represented in the earliest (Homeric) attestation of the Argonautic myth transmits the backbone of the “original”
narrative. Moreover, it is impossible to recover any information regarding the geographical dimension of the source
myth from the mists of the inaccessible oral tradition. We must therefore accept the Homeric attestation as one
9
this tradition shed light on this early iteration of the voyage. The Argo bears the epithet
ποντοπόρος. This epithet is generally applied to ships in Homer and conveys the basic meaning
“seafaring.”23 Consideration of the components of this compound adjective suggests the role of
ships as instruments for the imposition of linear order (πόρος) over a trackless expanse
(πόντος).24 When applied to the Argo, moreover, the root of this epithet bears special
significance: Pontos-crossing Argo. The far-famed ship is thus at an early date associated with
the successful navigation of the Euxine Sea, though this does not necessarily localize the
Planktai in the area of the Euxine.25 Furthermore, Kirke places the Argo’s passage through the
Planktai on the return voyage from the land of her brother: παρ᾽ Αἰήταο πλέουσα. Though Kirke
provides no specific topographical markers with which to locate the Planktai, the context of this
allusion indicates proximity to several other maritime hazards, specifically between the Sirens
and the straits of Skylla and Charybdis. These mythical places are not associated with any readily
identifiable locations in the Odyssey. As a consequence of this obscurity, during the period of
Greek exploration following the composition of the Homeric epics, one tradition localized this
group of obstacles in the Western Mediterranean.26 Indeed, so firmly were these hazards tethered
to the West by the time of Apollonios that the poet draws attention to the difficulty of accounting
for their inclusion within his treatment of the Argo’s route.27
version of the myth among several and thus avoid conflating temporal priority with proximity to a hypothetical
source narrative. cf. Bunbury 1959, pp. 25-27.
23
cf. Il. 1.439 and 2.771 for this general application.
24
See Thalmann 2011, pp. 28-29.
25
Frequent use of the epithet ποντοπόρος in a general sense casts doubt upon my narrow reading of this term. In its
defense, I offer the universal association of the Argo with the Euxine “Pontos” in subsequent iterations of the myth.
26
For studies of the localization of Homeric topography (focused primarily on the Odyssey) consult Malkin 1998,
Dougherty 2001, and Hartog 2001. This process of mythological localization is particularly relevant to Apollonios’
treatment of the Argonautic nostos.
27
cf. Arg. 4.552-556: ἀλλά, θεαί, πῶς τῆσδε παρὲξ ἁλός ἀµφί τε γαῖαν/ Αὐσονίην νήσους τε Λιγυστίδας, αἳ
καλέονται/ Στοιχάδες, Ἀργῴης περιώσια σήµατα νηὸς/ νηµερτὲς πέφαται; τίς ἀπόπροθι τόσσον ἀνάγκη/ καὶ χρειώ
σφ᾽ ἐκόµισσε; τίνες σφέας ἤγαγον αὖραι;
10
Subsequent treatments of the Argonautic nostos contain significantly more geographical
detail than the Homeric allusion referenced above. Following the traditional narrative of
developments in the Greek geographical consciousness, the rapid appearance of several variant
routes in the literary record stems from an increased awareness of the topographical realities of
the regions that became associated with the myth.28 This hypothetical process is itself a
problematic interpretation of the process of localizing myths, as it assumes the temporal priority
of the Homeric version and follows an arboreal model wherein mythical variants branch out from
a single origin. Attribution of another early iteration of the voyage to Hesiod in the scholia to
Apollonios’ Argonautika complicates this model.29 The scholiast claims that Ἡσίοδος δὲ διὰ
Φάσιδος αὐτοὺς εἰσπεπλευκέναι λέγει (Scholia ad Apollonium Rhodium 4.284). This is clarified
in a separate scholion (ad 4.259) explaining that in the versions of Hesiod, Pindar, and
Antimachos, the Argonauts sail up the Phasis River to the stream of Okeanos, which they follow
south to Libya, portaging the Libyan desert until their eventual arrival at τὸ ἡµέτερον πέλαγος.
Although certainty is impossible given the loss of the relevant portions of Hesiod and
Antimachos, the scholia’s credibility is partially vouchsafed by the survival of Pindar’s lyric take
on the voyage.
The route described by Pindar in Pythian 4 supports the testimony of the scholia. Though
active approximately two centuries after Hesiod’s supposed 7th-century floruit, Pindar attests to
the enduring popularity of Argo’s return on the waters of Okeanos.30 He notes the course of their
28
Thus Bunbury 1959, pp. 21-22: “the ingenuity of the poets and logographers, having a wide field afforded them
by the prevailing vagueness of geographical notions, was exercised in devising various routes—all equally
imaginary, and equally impossible, by which the ship Argo was supposed to have effected her return to Thessaly.”
29
Bunbury 1959, p. 22 credits this as the “original” itinerary attached to the myth, contradicting his claim that the
original version was impossible to determine (see above). Attribution of this version to Hesiod achieves a higher
degree of credibility given the poet’s familiarity with the river networks involved in this iteration: see the Catalogue
of Rivers at Hesiod Th. 337-345.
30
For the purposes of this study I accept the conventional attribution of the Theogony and Works and Days to a
single poet named Hesiod active in the seventh century. I should acknowledge, however, that the historicity of the
11
outbound voyage from Iolkos northeast along the shore of Thrace and through the Symplegades,
to the Phasis (Pyth. 4.202-212) and back along Okeanos (251-256) in brief, colorful strokes
appropriate to epinikia, which could ill afford the exhaustive travelogues of epic. The poet’s use
of the Argonautic itinerary as a charter myth for the foundation of Kyrene and the sovereignty of
Arkesilas predisposed his presentation of this version of the route, which facilitates the heroes’
encounter with the god Eurypylos and the bestowal of the Libyan clod upon Euphemos (19-56).
1.2 A Model for the Analysis of Geographical Description
Having traced the tradition of the Argo’s voyage in Greek literature prior to Apollonios, I
will turn here to a brief exposition of the theoretical model of ancient geographical thought upon
which the ensuing analysis is founded. The scope of this model and its interpretive implications
are intended to encompass the myriad articulations of spatial data and concepts that contribute to
the construction of a geographical framework, even if, as is often the case, the text presents no
holistic synthesis articulating the contours of this framework. Hence, elements of explicit spatial
description that do not contribute to such a framework are excluded from discussion. This
portion of Chapter 1 explores the relationship between myth and geography, the transmission of
geographical representations in antiquity, and the place of geographical writing in Early
Ptolemaic Alexandria. I structure this study of Apollonian spatial description around a series of
five fundamental premises that underpin the methodological framework of Chapters 2 and 3:
1. Focused textual engagement with geographical discourse as an element of ancient
Greek literature arose and persisted in three distinct contexts. Data and concepts that
poet Hesiod is far from certain, and that the various poems attributed to him by the ancients may in fact have been
composed by multiple individuals during the Archaic period or earlier and were only compiled under the
Kunstpersona “Hesiod” at a later date, as has long been a prevalent theory in Homeric studies. Hence the date of this
Argonautic attestation is as insecure as that in Homer.
12
accumulated in each separate strain transferred rapidly to influence the others, ensuring a
persistent eclectic element to the field.
2. Greeks frequently appropriated as evidence the most basic components of their
mythology—characters, events, and settings—in a manner similar to that with which they
approached historically documented periods.
3. In antiquity, verbal exposition proved the most enduring form of transmission of
geographical knowledge and theory.
4. Innovations in the art of spatial description may therefore correspond to major
developments in geographical discourse.
5. Apollonios consciously engaged in the active reception and reformulation of mythical
space as a component of the Argonaut myth.
These five premises constitute a theoretical basis for the spatial analysis occupying subsequent
chapters, which contend that the innovative nostos described in Argonautika 4 provides
information critical to a thorough understanding of Apollonios’ deep engagement with and
reformulation of the geographical dimensions of the Argonauts’ mythical world and the
consequent implications of this perspective for the study of Hellenistic literature.
I will turn now to my first premise. Topically focused textual articulations of
geographical discourse emerged in three separate fields in roughly the same period of Greek
history (the late 6th century BCE). Subsequent developments in these independent fields of
thought influenced the development of geographical concepts through the Classical Period and
into the Hellenistic Era: practical descriptive geography, historiographical descriptive geography,
and speculative geography. Each of these modes of articulating geographical concepts differed in
purpose, methodological foundations, structure, and style. Despite these distinctions, however,
13
elements of each contributed to advances in the others. One cannot discuss the evolution of
geographical excursuses in Greek historiography without addressing the presentation of
topographical data in texts composed for practical application. Even the most mathematically
rooted description of a theoretical model of the earth’s shape is informed by spatial concepts
articulated in the other two fields.31 The conquests of Alexander the Great and subsequent
developments in all three branches of geographical thought provide a striking and temporally
proximate example of their codependence.
Alexander’s expeditions opened the eastern horizon of the oikoumene to Greek thought
on a scale unrivalled in previous centuries. The most basic catalyst of geographical revolution
facilitated by the penetration of Central Asia was the alignment of geographical theory with
empirical data accumulated by practical experience.32 The boundless steppe north of Persia and
the long shores of the Erythraian Sea, once objects of speculation and hypothetical points
marking the edges of the known world, were now accessible to direct observation and precise
measurement. On the precedent established by previous rulers of Asia, such as Dareios’
sponsorship of the Erythraian voyage accomplished by Skylax of Karyanda, Alexander
dispatched expeditions to the far reaches of his vast territory to address problems of topography
such as the relationship between the headwaters of various major rivers and the contours of
distant seas. The Caspian Sea and its environs invited exploration as a potential avenue north and
31
See Herodotos 2.5-34 for a thorough example of the tight interlacing of these three strands in his discussion of the
geography of Egypt and the question of the source of the Nile’s annual floods. Herodotos begins this geographical
excursus in the midst of an ethnographic excursus, itself a form of lengthy introduction to the foreign spaces and
peoples pertinent to the invasion of Kambyses narrated in the following book (3.1-38). His inclination is thus firmly
established as historiographical descriptive geography. However, he demonstrates throughout this description a
reliance upon native sources who are able to describe portions of the land as a product of their quotidian
occupations: for example, Herodotos notes that the locals provide him dimensional figures in varying standards of
measurement in proportion to the amount of property they own (2.6.2). Furthermore, he draws upon principles of
theoretical geology and applies them in a display of counterfactual geography to illustrate the phenomenon of
silting, a topic of immediate relevance to his more grounded description of the Nile delta (2.10-11).
32
See Bichler 2015 for a discussion of the limits of Greek geographical knowledge in the 5th century BCE and the
influence of contemporary spatial articulations of Achaemenid power structures on Greek thought. See Gehrke 2015
for a discussion of Alexander’s contributions to the development of Greek geographical thought.
14
west for purposes of trade and further conquest.33 The Indus Valley and the coast of the
Erythraian Sea offered corresponding prospects to the south.34 Furthermore, Alexander employed
bematistai to perform the systematic measurement of his empire.35 Alexander’s conquests hence
encouraged the accumulation of vast quantities of topographical data and either corroborated or
dismissed longstanding theories concerning the shape of the eastern world. The conquests
shuffled the relationship between practical, historiographical, and theoretical approaches to
geographical description, but in the process proved the inherent dependence of each branch on
the other. Moreover, they shifted the purview of geographical discourse to accommodate a
continental framework after centuries of descriptions tethered to the Mediterranean. As Chapters
2 and 3 demonstrate, this shift echoes into the work of the Alexandrian scholar-poet as well.
Despite the tightly woven nature of this web of information constituting the loose generic
field of Greek geography in its formative stages, it is important to recall the fundamental
distinctions dividing these three fields of conscious geographical discourse.36 Here I must
reiterate the absence of an independent field of “geography” throughout much of antiquity,
though there developed individual traditions of geographical writing in various contexts.
Eratosthenes was the first to deploy the adjective γεωγραφικά in defining a prose treatise focused
on describing the shape of the earth. Though his systematic approach to geographical description
and sound mathematical proofs ushered in a new approach to geographical discourse, it did not
eclipse the three original approaches to this multifaceted topic that emerged in the 6th century.
For the purposes of this thesis, the field that is most firmly rooted in the daily accumulation and
33
See Gehrke 2015, pp. 91-92 for a treatment of geographical problems surrounding the Caspian Sea.
See Bucciantini 2015 for a discussion of the exploratory expeditions of Nearchos and others in the wake of
Alexander’s conquest.
35
See Strabo 15.2.8 and FGrH 119-121 for evidence of the use of this data as a basis for constructing geographical
frameworks committed to writing.
36
I derive terminology from Dueck 2012 in describing my own tripartite division of geographical discourse.
34
15
application of geographical data is termed practical descriptive geography. As its name suggests,
this field developed to serve the needs of travellers of various types, drawing on primarily
anecdotal information accumulated to facilitate spatial orientation and convey a minimal amount
of topographical detail. In its most basic form, it comprised of a collection of topographical data
arranged on a hodological principle: a coherent sequential structure following a hypothetical
itinerary through space. Because sea travel was a relatively efficient means of long-distance
transportation in the ancient Mediterranean, practical descriptive geography was initially focused
primarily on the details of marine navigation, occasionally conveying brief descriptions of
coastal regions and their inhabitants. These were termed periploi to account for their circuitous
hodological structure and maritime focus.37 The purpose of these works is unclear, but it seems
unlikely that they served a practical purpose in the daily business of mariners. The texts are full
of inconsistencies in measurement and sequence and often neglect details of use to the mariner,
such as the quality of a coastal settlement’s harbor or the navigational difficulties of a particular
stretch of water. Instead, these works—along with their terrestrial counterparts, periodoi—likely
represent exercises in the collection of spatial data from experienced sources and the
construction of a comprehensive framework therefrom.
The second division of geographical discourse in this threefold scheme is termed
historiographical descriptive geography to reflect the literary context in which it is embedded.
The emergence of prose histories at the close of the 6th century provided the impetus for this
form of geography. Ancient historiography developed a narrative structure following a sequence
37
In historiography, the term περίπλους designates the navigation of a ship around an obstacle such as a headland
(e.g. Herodotos 6.95, Thucydides 2.80) or an enemy fleet (e.g. Xenophon, Hellenika 1.6.31). This term is later
applied as a title to a selection of geographical works sharing features of style and organization later (the first work
entitled such is the Periplous of Pseudo-Skylax, dated to the late fourth century BCE, but this title may have been
applied as late as the sixth-century compiler Markianos of Herakleia: see Shipley 2011, pp. 1-23). Meyer 2008, p.
268 likens the spatial framework of the Argonautika to a comprehensive periplous encompassing the entire
oikoumene. The Argo’s route traces a near complete circle through the inhabited world. Furthermore, Apollonios
orients various stages of the voyage using physical features of the coast as geographical reference points.
16
of key events. Historians therefore endeavored to contextualize these pivotal set pieces in a
spatial framework.38 Early prose writers also demonstrated an interest in the question of the
position and features of various portions of the earth apart from the construction of a spatial
context for chronological narrative: the relationships between points in space (places) were
explored just as much as between points in time (events). Individual writers provided as much or
as little spatial detail as their individual tastes demanded; some kept geographical description to a
minimum while others devoted lengthy excursuses to such descriptions.39
The third and final form of geographical discourse in this scheme is speculative
geography, the type furthest removed from the empirical collection of geographical information
and least pertinent to the immediate needs of ancient travellers. Speculative geography first
emerged as an element of Presocratic philosophy.40 Early proponents of speculative geography
sought to discern the shape of the earth by a process of deductive reasoning drawing upon a
number of basic assumptions regarding the composition of the cosmos. Speculative geography
inspired the production of schematic geographical models that illustrated the basic elements of
these cosmological frameworks.
I will turn now to Premise 2. Greeks engaged with the events, characters, and settings of
their mythological tradition in historiographical contexts, applying the core methodologies of
prose histories to this body of evidence as they would that of a historical period. As a
consequence, verse narratives on mythological topics—the Homeric epics above all—were
scrutinized for data relevant to the focus of the individual writer. Some historians account for the
38
See Dueck 2012, p. 8.
Rood 2012 notes Thucydides’ characteristic restraint in geographical exposition, reserving this type of
information for episodes of high pathos. Herodotos occupies the opposite end of the spectrum, providing an
abundance of geographical detail that illustrates his perspective on ethnic and geographical identity in the
oikoumene.
40
See Thomson 1948, pp. 94-122 and Bunbury 1959, pp. 120-155.
39
17
origins of historical conflicts by citing mythological precedent.41 Others attempt to derive
historical paradigms from mythological accounts, stripping them of fantastical elements so as to
identify the historical truths at their core and illustrate their particular views on the prehistory of
the Greek world.42 Their acceptance of mythological material in this manner finds a close
parallel in the geographical interpretation of Greek mythology. The Homeric epics in particular
served as a primary source for geographical writers of subsequent ages.43
I will turn now to Premise 3. In antiquity, verbal exposition proved the most enduring
mode of transmitting geographical knowledge and theory. Geographical information lends itself
to verbal articulation. The act of supplying directions from Point A to Point B is one of the most
basic functions of human communication. Geographical description also inspires visual
representation in the form of schematic figures or precise maps. However, the transmission of
these visuals aids was hindered by the difficulty of reproducing graphically encoded information
accurately over long stretches of time.44 Copyists, many of whom probably had little to no
familiarity with the concepts encoded in the material they were transmitting, easily introduced
errors into such a complicated visual code. The absence of any surviving cartographical evidence
from the Classical or Hellenistic periods problematizes any attempt at identifying the role of
maps in the transmission of geographical information in the ancient world. However, it is evident
from literary testimony that maps played a role in the rhetoric and education of the elite in the
41
Herodotos contextualizes his historical focus—the Persian Wars of the early fifth century BCE—as the most
recent manifestation of a conflict with roots in the deep past. He traces the animosity between Greek and barbarian
to a series of transgressions initiated by the theft of various important women drawn from the mythological tradition.
See Hartog 1988 for a discussion of the role of cultural memory in the ethnographic paradigms constructed by
Herodotos.
42
Thucydides integrates much evidence of this type into his Archaeology (1.1-23), particularly in his treatment of
Greek prehistory and the rise of the Cretan thalassocracy of King Minos in the Aegean (1.4).
43
cf. Strabo 8.1.1 for a defense of this practice in the face of earlier criticism of “Homeric” geography by
Eratosthenes: Strabo considers Homer first among the geographers of Greece, followed by those who composed
periploi and periodoi ges as well as those historians who included topographical excursuses as significant elements
of their accounts (he names Ephoros and Polybios).
44
See Dueck 2012, pp. 99-100.
18
Classical period.45 This suggests at least a superficial familiarity with the cartographer’s visual
code among the aristocracy. However, even these textual attestations of maps demonstrate the
limitations of the visual transmission of spatial information: they are accompanied by verbal
explanations for the sake of the uninformed audience. Hence the need for verbal exegesis
accompanies even graphic means of transmitting geographical frameworks in antiquity.
Premise 4 is closely linked with the literary repercussions of Premise 3 noted above:
developments in geographical thought necessarily consisted of innovations in the verbal
illustrations through which spatial information was conveyed in antiquity. These innovations
may be grouped into three categories: changes in the form of the raw spatial data itself, the
thematic focus of the description, and the descriptive mode. The first of these categories is an
obvious element of geographical development. Different regions emerge and occupy the
attention of geographers of different periods. Fresh information invites comment by writers and
demands integration into existing frameworks.46 Beyond these shifts at the level of raw data,
there also occurred shifts in the type of spatial information that individual writers focused upon.
These shifts in focus correspond to differences in the immediate context within which this
information is embedded, whether it defines the territory of various peoples in ethnographical
discourse, serves as a backdrop for comments on distant thaumata, or locates the sources of
natural resources pertinent to the writer’s study. Further removed from the level of basic
geographical detail are changes in descriptive method, such as innovations in descriptive
standpoint, focalization within narratives, and visual metaphor. This study discusses change on
each of these levels in the context of the Argonautika.
45
For Classical Greek perspectives on the cartographical habit, see Herodotos 4.36.2 and 5.49.1-50.1 as well as
Aristophanes, Clouds 220.
46
e.g. the wave of geographical innovation following the conquests of Alexander the Great noted above.
19
Discussion shall now turn to Premise 5: Apollonios consciously engaged in the active
reception and reformulation of mythical space as a component of the Argonaut myth in
composing his Argonautika. The compositional process involved multiple points of engagement
with this mythological material: reception of source material, consideration of this material from
the perspective of a third-century Alexandrian scholar-poet, and reformulation of the material
received to account for factors identified in the consideration of the material in the poetic
context. The scholarly environment of early Hellenistic Alexandria demanded comprehensive
engagement with the corpus of Greek literature available to member of the city’s literary circles.
Apollonios operated within this environment. The sheer diversity of sources that the scholia
credit to Apollonios is testament to his reception of a wide range of Argonautic source material.47
The poet’s consideration of this material as an Alexandrian scholar may be inaccessible to the
modern literary historian, but the poet’s reformulation of this material and a comparison with
what is securely known about the compositional methodologies and prevailing geographical
views attested in contemporaneous works inform our perspective on Apollonios’ own
compositional methodologies.48
The correspondence of these five premises supports a geographical reading of
Apollonios’ Argonautika. Because myth is so clearly conceptualized in the Greek mind using the
same essential framework of spatial description as that which the individual has at his disposal in
describing events of historical reality, the geography of epic can be approached from a similar
analytical perspective. Likewise, the detailed internal geography of this epic may be subjected to
47
It should be noted, however, that the scholia must not serve as a comprehensive list of Apollonios’ sources.
Indeed, much scholarly ink has been spilled in identifying which sources Apollonios actually used and drawing
conclusions from this information regarding his poetic intent, e.g. Delage 1930 and Pearson 1938.
48
This model of composition is mirrored within the epic itself in Orpheus’ activity at 1.28-31. See Klooster 2012, p.
63.
20
the lens of narratology. The innovative modes of spatial description deployed by the poet are an
index of broader changes in the conceptualization of space in the Hellenistic Era.
Apollonios broadcasts this program of innovation in the context of the Argonautika’s
internal geography through a mixture of discrete foreshadowing and the withholding of
information specific to the return itinerary. Because this thesis focuses on the articulation of
geographical information, it is important to note the stark contrast between such exposition in the
two lengthy voyages undertaken by the heroes in this epic: the outbound voyage, which occupies
Books 1 and 2, and the return voyage, which occupies Book 4. As noted above, Apollonios
chooses to bring the Argonauts home by a route entirely different from the outbound itinerary.
The departure from familiar territory for uncharted waters in Book 4 freed the poet’s hand,
offering a blank canvas on which Apollonios—using all the compositional strategies at his
disposal—painted an artifact of the epic tradition: a sequence simultaneously novel in subject
and syncretistic in composition.
‘ὦ τέκος, εὖτ᾽ ἂν πρῶτα φύγῃς ὀλοὰς διὰ πέτρας,
θάρσει: ἐπεὶ δαίµων ἕτερον πλόον ἡγεµονεύσει
ἐξ Αἴης: µετὰ δ᾽ Αἶαν ἅλις ποµπῆες ἔσονται.
ἀλλά, φίλοι, φράζεσθε θεᾶς δολόεσσαν ἀρωγὴν
Κύπριδος. ἐκ γὰρ τῆς κλυτὰ πείρατα κεῖται ἀέθλων.
καὶ δέ µε µηκέτι τῶνδε περαιτέρω ἐξερέεσθε.’
“O child, immediately upon escaping the ruinous rocks,
Take heart: a god will guide you thence on a different route
From Aia: indeed, after Aia there will be guides aplenty.
But, friends, recognize the cunning assistance of divine
Kypris. For the glorious enjoyment of our prize relies on her.
But ask of me no more than this.” (Ap. Rh. Arg. 2.420-425)
In this cryptic pronouncement of Phineus, emaciated blind prophet of the Thynian shore,
Apollonios encodes a programmatic statement that introduces to the attentive reader a hint of
three crucial elements that define the poet’s approach to the Argonautic nostos: divine
21
assistance,49 a sequence of guides,50 and a novel setting.51 To this passage’s internal narratees—
the Argonauts—Phineus’ foresight accomplishes very little in the way of practical advice. On the
one hand, it serves the immediate function of dispelling the prospect of eternal exile from the
Inner Sea, the obvious consequence of successful passage through the traditionally impassable
Symplegades into the Pontos in the Argonauts’ limited understanding of the epic’s internal
geography.52 On the other hand, the tantalizing clues it provides concerning the nature of the
return journey bear tremendous import to the study of geography’s prominent position in the
epic.
Of the three elements Phineus foretells, mention of the return journey’s novel route
(ἕτερον πλόον) assumes the reader’s interest and active engagement with the internal logic
governing the epic’s spatial framework.53 It inspires anticipation of the path to come and invites
contemplation of prior iterations of the Argonautic itinerary some eight hundred lines before the
outbound voyage’s destination (Kolkhis) is yet achieved.54 Moreover, it foregrounds spatial
progression as the structural framework constituting much of the epic’s plot. The success of
Jason’s quest depends on the Argonauts’ ability to traverse the epic’s internal landscape. Indeed,
the burden of ensuring a safe return for his comrades serves as a constant source of anxiety for
49
Phineus alludes both specifically to the celestial guidance provided by Hecate in the form of a blazing comet at
4.294-302 and more generally to the greater frequency of divine intervention (especially that of Hera) on the return
voyage.
50
e.g. the Hylleans at 4.526-528 and Triton at 4.1571-1585.
51
As I clarify below, this return voyage is “different” in multiple ways: distinct in form and content from the
outbound route and distinct in geographical context from its literary predecessors.
52
At this point the Argonauts are ignorant of the physical repercussions of their imminently successful navigation:
the Symplegades henceforward remain rooted in place flanking the Bosporus. The path of the Argo yields many
such changes to the physical landscape, enthusiastically explained by the scholarly narrator’s frequent asides.
53
For discussion of the epic’s narratees, consult Cuypers 2004, pp. 53-57.
54
As noted above, multiple poetic variants on the path of the Argonautic nostos prior to that of Apollonios are
attested, though Apollonios’ Argonautika contains the earliest extant narrative detailing the heroes’ return itinerary.
There are also several later variant accounts contained in works representing a range of both poetic and prose genres,
among which are the so-called Orphic Argonautica and the Argonautica of Valerius Flaccus. This diverse treatment
demonstrates the myth’s enduring capacity to inspire reconsideration and reformulation of geographical thought in
the audience of each successive iteration.
22
Apollonios’ sensitive Jason.55 The frequency with which help comes to the Argonauts in the
form of experienced mortal or divine guides further demonstrates that the Argonauts’ persistent
orientation crisis functions as a central conflict motivating the plot. As Phineus’ prophecy
indicates, the Argonautika’s geographical framework is central to Apollonios’ conceptualization
and transmission of the myth. Hence the peculiarities of his treatment, specifically the details and
descriptive modes applied to the Argo’s ἕτερος πλόος along the mythologized river systems of
Europe, are the focus of this study.56
Book 4 of the Argonautika constitutes an important stage in the development of ancient
conceptions of the inhabited world’s northern limits.57 This vast tract of dry land posed a
challenge to the descriptive capabilities of the Greeks, adapted as they were to the description of
smaller territories cut by rugged terrain and seasonal torrents on the rare occasions when
circumstances deprived them of a marine reference-point. The Argo’s route through Central
Europe into the Western Mediterranean, in its capacity as an Apollonian innovation founded on
prior mythological precedent, presents a unique reformulation of mythical geography not only in
the text’s geographical content, but also in the descriptive modes through which these details are
55
Jason’s constant concern for his comrades echoes the mission of his literary predecessor/mythological successor
Odysseus, introduced to the Homeric audience as ἀρνύµενος ἥν τε ψυχὴν καὶ νόστον ἑταίρων (Od. 1.5). Indeed,
Jason’s anxiety reads as if it were inspired by the prospect of the fate suffered by Odysseus’ crews, a dynamic
impossible within the mythical chronology yet entirely likely given Apollonios’ overt use of the Homeric epics
(especially the Odyssey) as literary models. A reader of the Argonautika familiar with the Odyssey cannot help but
recall the poet’s ominous elaboration of the above quotation: ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ὣς ἑτάρους ἐρρύσατο, ἱέµενός περ:/ αὐτῶν
γὰρ σφετέρῃσιν ἀτασθαλίῃσιν ὄλοντο,/ νήπιοι, οἳ κατὰ βοῦς Ὑπερίονος Ἠελίοιο/ ἤσθιον: αὐτὰρ ὁ τοῖσιν ἀφείλετο
νόστιµον ἦµαρ (Od. 6-9).
56
D. Meyer 2008 attempts a similar approach but is hindered by the compulsory brevity of the companion chapter
and her ambitious range, resulting in a cursory survey of the entire text that raises as many questions as it answers.
She argues for reading Apollonian geographical conventions as “typical of geographical thought in the early
Hellenistic period” (p. 271). Regarding the unpopularity of this approach Meyer cites the fragmentary state of the
ancient evidence and the long-standing neglect of Hellenistic geography as an object of concentrated scholarly
interest. cf. Delage 1930, pp. 14-19 and Rubio 1992, pp. 70-81.
57
I would contend that the spatial description in the Argonautika has bearing on the study of ancient geographical
conceptions of the entire inhabited world, but a study of such comprehensive scope is beyond the scope of this
thesis. Hence I focus on a region for which Apollonios’ contribution is particularly pronounced: the riverine fringes
of epic cosmology.
23
conveyed.58 Recent studies have identified a pattern in the development of these modes through
the Classical Period pertaining to the inclination to offer a holistic presentation of a work’s story
space for the benefit of the reader.59 Ancient writers differ in their approach to the ideal
presentation of space in narrative. A distinction emerges as early as the Homeric poems between
two types of spatial description. One approach adopts the divine perspective in order to describe
space from a celestial standpoint, providing an impressionistic rendering of vast tracts akin to a
cursory glance at a map.60 This has been termed the proto-cartographical representation of space
due to its affinities to the holistic representations of space in the round adopted by Ionian
geographers.61 This study prefers the term quasi-cartographical to remove the temporal element
from the concept. The opposing type of description follows a route, real or imaginary, through
space, presenting the experience of space in linear movement.62 This has been termed the
counter-cartographical representation of space. However, this study prefers the term
“hodological” due to its more obvious designation of linear pathways.63 Following the precedent
set by the Homeric epics, Classical Greek writers tend to adopt one of these two strategies as a
staple of spatial description in their works. Apollonios demonstrates a mastery of both these
strategies in the Argonautika in his multidimensional articulation of the heroes’ route.
58
By “descriptive modes” I denote the various methods of verbal representation at the storyteller’s disposal. I derive
this terminology and analytical methodology from the work of I. J. F. de Jong, for which see de Jong 2012, pp.1-18
as well as the useful glossary of terms at pp. xi-xiv.
59
See in particular Purves 2010 and Thalmann 2011.
60
This descriptive strategy predominates in the Iliad, in which individual actions occur in a descriptive void
occasionally broken by vague references to the topography of the Troad. The poet confines extensive spatial
descriptions to sequences of divine observation, the Catalogue of Ships, and the ekphrasis of the Shield of Achilles.
61
Purves 2010, pp.1-23 introduces these differing approaches to the description of space employing the terminology
noted here. Her terms for these two descriptive strategies suit the diachronic tendency of her thesis, but do not seem
appropriate to the corresponding strategies attested in Apollonios.
62
This descriptive strategy predominates in the Odyssey and persists as a fixture of spatial description in prose.
63
The term “hodological” is derived from Janni 1984.
24
The peculiarities of Apollonios’ treatment reflect his innovations in both the epic
tradition and the development of Greek geographical thought broadly defined.64 This claim is
supported in the ensuing chapters with an analysis of both the specific geographical content and
the methods Apollonios deploys in verbally conveying this information within a coherent spatial
framework.65 The structure of this argument reflects the Argo’s linear progress through space
and narrative time. Chapter 2 introduces the riverine orientational framework and its relation to
Apollonios’ shifting descriptive strategies with an examination of the descriptions contained
within the narrative of the Argo’s arrival at, and departure from, Kolkhis. Chapter 3 focuses on
the traversal of the European landmass via the extensive mythical river-systems Istros and
Eridanos. Charting this discussion parallel to the Argo’s progress will demonstrate the
tremendous diversity of spatial representations within fixed geographical tracts and emphasize
the close relationship between geographical detail and narrative structure.
64
Meyer points out the recently broadened semantic range of geography as comprising of not only specific pieces of
information about the shape and orientation of points on a scale model of the earth’s surface, but also the conceptual
framework within which these pieces of information are perceived and in turn represented: “both topography and the
study of geographical speculation, fantasy, and mythology” (Meyer 2008 p. 275).
65
I will discuss ambiguities and exceptions to the internal coherence of Apollonian geography in their narrative
context at relevant points in Chapters 2 and 3. For the moment, it suffices to note that the matter of coherence should
pertain only to a discussion of the narrative’s “story-space” (the sequence of explicitly described settings in which
the events of the primary narrative unfold). By contrast, individual spatial “frames” introduced over the course of the
narrative (in, for example, dreams, prophecies, and the like) do not necessarily find a place in the framework of the
primary narrative. Consider Phineus’ prophecy quoted above. It introduces a spatial frame sketched in the most
basic contours: the prospect of an alternate route leading out of the Euxine basin. In this case, the frame in question
does correspond to a spatial reality within the epic’s geographical framework: the Argonauts succeed in escaping the
Euxine using the transcontinental Istros waterway. In certain other instances of this type of spatial description,
however, the reality of such a space is never confirmed by narratorial comment or description focalized by the
Argonauts, as discussed below in the case of Apollo’s exile among the Hyperboreans (4.611-618).
25
2. Dilating the Lens of Descriptive Geography
2.1 Kolkhis: Introducing the River as a Descriptive Framework
An examination of Apollonios’ deployment of geographical detail in the narrative of the
Argonauts’ experience arriving and departing from Kolkhis will illustrate the relationship
between the river as an element of the epic landscape and as an instrument of geographical
orientation. This section introduces descriptive patterns that recur in subsequent discussion of the
descriptive frameworks at play along the Istros route. The arrival of the Argo in Kolkhis heralds
a shift in the dynamics of spatial description from that of the outbound journey. The ship reaches
the terminus of its maritime voyage on the easternmost shores of the Euxine Sea at the end of
Book 2. In the liminal space occupying the end of this book, Apollonios includes a series of
descriptive passages that disrupt the sequential shore-oriented descriptive mode of the outbound
route and shift the reader’s focus to the continent. The Phasis River replaces the shores of the
Euxine as the primary geographical reference point orienting spatial description throughout the
Kolkhis narrative.66 The Phasis maintains the linear structure of the coastal route but penetrates
the continental interior of Asia. This riverine dynamic dilates the lens of spatial description to
accommodate extensive tracts of terrestrial geography heretofore inaccessible to the coast-bound
Argonautic perspective. Lest scholarly indulgence in the enumeration of distant locales detract
from the heroic perspective and sever the continuity of narrative time, Apollonios applies a
descriptive focalization that shifts subtly to facilitate brief glimpses of vast regions. This shifting
66
Discussion of the Phasis here is textually limited to sequences that illustrate the shift in descriptive mode that
accompanies the shift in geographical context between maritime and continental travel.
26
focalization, achieved through a variety of narratorial tricks, strikes a balance between
hodological and quasi-cartographical descriptive frameworks.
Apollonios introduces this structural shift at the conclusion of a particularly schematic
description of the final stages of the voyage along the Euxine shore. The eastern extent of this
coast is covered in an itemized sequence of the local inhabitants.
κεῖθεν δ᾽ αὖ Μάκρωνας ἀπειρεσίην τε Βεχείρων
γαῖαν ὑπερφιάλους τε παρεξενέοντο Σάπειρας,
Βύζηράς τ᾽ ἐπὶ τοἵσιν: ἐπιπρὸ γὰρ αἰὲν ἔτεµνον
ἐσσυµένως, λιαροῖο φορεύµενοι ἐξ ἀνέµοιο.
Thence in turn they proceeded alongside the Makrones and
The boundless land of the Bekheires and the overbearing Sapeires
And the Byzeres after them: for they clove ever onward
Swiftly, propelled by the warm wind (2.1242-1245).
This brief catalogue illustrates linear progress by equating ethnos and territory, a descriptive
method that conveys scant visual detail but stresses the scope of the distance travelled. The
descriptors ἀπειρεσίην and ἐσσυµένως further emphasize the extent of the voyage and the Argo’s
swift pace. The terse description of this portion of the itinerary contrasts with the narrative
immediately preceding it, which Apollonios embellishes with frequent ethnographical and
aetiological asides. This contrast effects an accelerated pace as the Argo nears its destination at
sea’s end:
καὶ δὴ νισσοµένοισι µυχὸς διεφαίνετο Πόντου
καὶ δὴ Καυκασίων ὀρέων ἀνέτελλον ἐρίπναι ἠλίβατοι.
And now the innermost gulf of Pontos emerged before them as they advanced
And above loomed the sheer precipices of the Kaukasos Mountains” (2.1246-8).
Apollonios vests the horizon with an animate quality as the imposing ridge of earth is rendered
manifest (διεφαίνετο) and seems to rise ever higher (ἀνέτελλον) at the limits of the heroes’
vision. However, the physical bounds set by this imposing elemental divide are themselves
27
illusory, as Apollonios clarifies upon the ship’s arrival. The sea-lanes end at the shore, but a vast
river offers passage to the interior:
ἐννύχιοι δ᾽ Ἄργοιο δαηµοσύνῃσιν ἵκοντο
Φᾶσίν τ᾽ εὐρὺ ῥέοντα, καὶ ἔσχατα πείρατα πόντοι
αὐτίκα δ᾽ ἱστία µὲν καὶ ἐπίκριον ἔνδοθι κοίλης
ἱστοδόκης στείλαντες ἐκόσµεον: ἐν δὲ καὶ αὐτὸν
ἱστὸν ἄφαρ χαλάσαντο παρακλιδόν: ὦκα δ᾽ ἐρετµοῖς
εἰσέλασαν ποταµοῖο µέγαν ῥόον: αὐτὰρ ὁ πάντῃ
καχλάζων ὑπόεικεν.
By the knowledge of Argos they arrived by night
At the broad-flowing Phasis and the furthest bounds of the sea
And straightaway furled the sail, stowed the yardarm in
The hollow mast-crutch, and then upon it
They lowered the mast at an angle; and with the oars they swiftly
Thrust into the river’s vast course, and on all sides
It gave way with a splash (2.1260-1266).
The transition from sea to river tests the navigational skills of the Argonauts.67 Although this
particular aquatic threshold does not threaten the heroes with naufragium in the manner of the
Symplegades, it requires a native Kolkhian’s familiarity with the local waters and a concerted
effort on the part of the rowers to successfully navigate the estuary.68 With a splash the Argo
crosses the physical boundary between sea and continent and breaks out of the conceptual
limitations of the shore-tethered descriptive framework.
As lines 2.1242-5 (quoted above) illustrate, the Argo’s coastal voyage established a
particular descriptive dynamic as the primary means of conveying geographical information
relative to the ship’s linear progress. The heroes’ movement through the landscape elicits two
67
Though it is impossible to determine the degree of Apollonios’ familiarity with the River Phasis (the modern
Rioni) from his poetry alone, this episode does reflect a navigational hazard at the mouth of the river, where
extensive alluvial deposits changed the shape of the estuary over time. The coastal region surrounding the delta of
the Rioni is largely wetland. Prehistoric settlements of this coastal region, many of which were inhabited into
Hellenistic times, were constructed on artificial mounds surrounded and drained by an extensive network of canals.
See Braund 1994, pp. 48-54. cf. the Hippocratic Airs, Waters, Places 15, which notes the importance of river travel
in this region, though exaggerates the situation to conform with the principles of environmental determinism
proposed in that work.
68
This is presumably Argos son of Phrixos rather than Argos the shipwright, though Apollonios does not specify.
The former was familiar with the waters of his native land, having ventured west on a doomed expedition bound for
Orchomenos. He later demonstrates a still broader knowledge of geography by revealing the riverine passage west
out of the Euxine along the Istros (4.257-293). See below for further discussion.
28
descriptive contexts. Structurally, the sea route is a protracted sequence of shorter voyages
interrupted periodically by logistical waypoints. Travel sequences narrating the voyage
component are accompanied by a description of the route traversed, while adventures set at the
waypoints prompt detailed descriptions of the immediate vicinity that are comparatively poor in
geographical data. The riverine context preserves certain elements of this descriptive division
while broadening the scope of terrestrial features described and prompting a multidimensional
perspective through shifting descriptive focalization.
The Phasis functions at its most basic level as a means of diversifying the setting of the
Kolkhis narrative, serving a similar purpose to the coastal sea-lanes of the preceding books. It
provides a network upon which Apollonios distributes further waypoints on the quest for the
Fleece as well as the means of transportation across the intervening space. Detailed descriptions
of intimate settings such as the palace of Aietes elucidate the environs of each waypoint. The
narrative charts a linear course within this network of riverside destinations, a double of the
outbound voyage in miniature. However, the similarity ends at this structural level. The
distinctive quality of the river network sets the continental interior under Apollonios’ descriptive
lens.
The physical dynamics of major continental river systems open the frontiers of
geographical description. Although they facilitate linear movement along their course much like
the shores of the sea, rivers only rarely broaden into vast expanses of featureless water, and even
in these cases the banks are typically discernable given sufficient elevation. Riverbanks sheath
the linear sequence of travel in a gauntlet of navigational reference points. Moreover, features
along the banks may encroach upon the river itself, bringing them into closer proximity to the
29
descriptive standpoint taken by the narrator midstream.69 Hence riverine spatial descriptions may
take on the intimacy characteristic of waypoint episodes on maritime itineraries. Indeed, the river
itself may serve as a waypoint along a terrestrial route. The banks of the Phasis serve in this
capacity as the backdrop for Medea’s covert flight from Aia:
ὦς ἄρ᾽ ἔφη: τὴν δ᾽ αἶψα πόδες φέρον ἐγκονέουσαν.
ἀσπασίως δ᾽ ὄχθῃσιν ἐπηέρθη ποταµοῖο,
ἀντιπέρην λεύσσουσα πυρὸς σέλας ὅ ῥά τ᾽ ἀέθλου
παννύχιοι ἥρωες ἐυφροσύνῃσιν ἔδαιον.
Thus spoke [the Moon]; but her feet bore bustling [Medea] onward.
And with joy she attained the river’s banks,
Catching sight of the gleam of fire opposite, which
Throughout the night the heroes kindled in the flush of victory (4.66-69).
The Moon shares the reader’s perspective in observing Medea’s shadowy path from Aia through
the river meadows to the banks of the Phasis. Aside from noting her point of departure and
arrival at the Phasis, the description spares geographical detail in favor of conveying the mood of
the landscape by emphasizing the alternation of light and darkness cloaking the region. The river
itself divides Medea from the camp of the Argonauts, and the passage following the lines quoted
above brings out its thematic significance as the Argonauts hasten to cross the river and intercept
the distraught Kolkhian. The use of the river as a thematic centerpiece for framing intimate
scenes such as this, however, merely illustrates its descriptive flexibility. The river’s capacity for
dilating the territorial range encompassed by a description is a still greater testament to
Apollonios’ skill at integrating shifting perspective into the epic’s spatial fabric.
The linear course of a river, beyond providing connective tissue between points on an
itinerary traversed by characters and described from their perspective, also provides access to
regions inaccessible to this perspective. Major rivers, as persistent fixtures of regional
69
The lower reaches of the Phasis, Istros, and Eridanos are not thus overshadowed by precipitous banks; on the
contrary, they divide into extensive deltas before meeting the sea. The imminence of particular features along the
shore is therefore a fantasy of the poet, though a fantasy indicative of a particular conception of what a riverine
environment is meant to look like for the purposes of an epic narrative.
30
topography, exist effectively outside of time, much like other geological features with linear
characteristics such as mountain ranges and coastlines. However, unlike these stationary
landmarks, rivers exist in perpetual motion. As much as much mountain ranges and coastlines
may be said to loom and stretch when observed from the perspective of an earth-bound observer,
adopting an animate quality for the sake of description, they do not move in the manner that
rivers do. By virtue of this characteristic, rivers immediately invite the formulation of a linear
framework extending beyond the range of human vision, removing the reader from the heroic
perspective and focalizing further description following the course of the river itself.
Immediately upon the arrival of the Argo in the Phasis estuary, Apollonios tests the
descriptive potential of the riverine framework.
ἔχον δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερὰ χειρῶν
Καύκασον αἰπήεντα Κυταιίδα τε πτόλιν Αἴης,
ἔνθεν δ᾽ αὖ πεδίον τὸ Ἀρήιον ἱερά τ᾽ ἄλση
τοῖο θεοῦ, τόθι κῶας ὄφις εἴρυτο δοκεύων
πεπτάµενον λασίοισιν ἐπὶ δρυὸς ἀκρεµόνεσσιν.
On the left hand they kept
Lofty Kaukasos and the Kytaian city of Aia,
And on the other the Plain of Ares and the sacred grove
Of that god, where the watchful serpent guards the fleece
Stretched out upon the leafy branches of an oak (2.1266-1270).
Apollonios provides the reader with a verbal map of the region that the Argonauts have just
entered. He focalizes the description from the heroic perspective with the tactile directional ἐπ᾽
ἀριστερὰ χειρῶν and corresponding ἔνθεν δ᾽ αὖ.70 In addition to maintaining the intensely visual
framework introduced at 2.1246-1248 (quoted above), the tactile description establishes the
Phasis as the reference point to which the regional locations are related.71 Gleaning from the
70
cf. Fränkel 1968 loc. cit.
The Phasis provided a reference point for geographical descriptions of Kolkhis in contemporary prose. In the
Periplous of Pseudo-Skylax, dated to the late fourth century BCE, the following entry notes the barbarian city of Aia
in relation to historically-attested coastal settlements and rivers among the Kolkhoi (P.S. 81): µετὰ δὲ τούτους
Κόλχοι ἔθνος καὶ Διοσκουρίας πόλις καὶ Γυηνὸς πόλις Ἑλληνὶς καὶ Γυηνὸς ποταµὸς καὶ Χιρόβος ποταµός, Χόρσος
71
31
imperfect ἔχον a gradual progression along a fixed route upstream, the reader can also infer the
relationship of locations along each bank: the Kaukasos appears before Aia on the left and the
Plain of Ares precedes the sacred grove on the right. Apollonios begins this brief descriptive
sequence with the Kaukasos, a feature of the landscape that had already loomed into view at the
heroes’ approach.72 The lofty crags of this range dominate the left bank of the river. The three
subsequent entries in this description, by contrast, are not explicitly linked to the heroic line of
sight at this juncture. While a reader might construe all four locations as points visible from the
river-bound perspective of the Argonauts, the text itself defies confirmation of this interpretation
and indeed suggests otherwise as the narrator hones in on a descriptive frame certainly
inaccessible from the shore: the location of the Fleece itself hanging on an oak shrouded in the
dense foliage of the sacred grove on the southern bank.73 The contrast in visual accessibility
between the impending Kaukasos and grove-shrouded Fleece indicates a shift in descriptive
focalization from the Argonauts to the omniscient narrator.
Changes to the descriptive framework corresponding to the riverine setting are
accompanied by narratorial techniques that tether increasingly immersive descriptions to the
immediate experience of the Argonauts. The shifting focalization noted above strikes a balance
between hodological and quasi-cartographical approaches to spatial description. Two further
passages from the narrative will illustrate the integration of still more dramatic shifts than those
discussed above. Apollonios accompanies his description of the Argo’s arrival in Kolkhis with a
ποταµός, Ἄριος ποταµός, Φᾶσις ποταµὸς, καὶ Φᾶσις Ἑλληνὶς πόλις. καὶ ἀνάπλους ἀνὰ τὸν ποταµὸν σταδίων ρπ´ εἰς
πόλιν Αἶαν µεγάλην βάρβαρον ὅθεν ἡ Μήδεια ἦν. ἐνταῦθά ἐστι Ῥὶς ποταµός, Ἴσις ποταµός, Λῃστῶν Ποταµός,
Ἄψαρος ποταµός. The anaplous mentioned here interrupts Pseudo-Skylax’s coast-tethered descriptive sequence
with a journey of some 180 stades upstream. The reference to Medea here is an additional curiosity.
72
The Kaukasos is more readily visible from the inland location of Kytaisi (the historical Kyta identified as Aia by
Apollonios) than from the coast of the Black Sea at the mouth of the Rioni. Apollonios contracts the geography of
Kolkhis to render the major features of the landscape immediately visible to the Argonauts upon arrival.
73
The hidden nature of the Fleece is evident later when Jason and Medea disembark and venture into the grove
(4.123-126).
32
visually striking glimpse of a celestial prodigy that draws the heroes’ attention to the upper air.
In turning the attention of the reader to this distant monster, Apollonios subtly elicits the brief
adoption of a god’s-eye perspective. Just as the Argonauts catch sight of the Kaukasos barring
their path forward, they perceive a massive creature soaring over the ship:
τὸν µὲν ἐπ᾽ ἀκροτάτης ἴδον ἕσπερον ὀξέι ῥοίζῳ
νηὸς ὑπερπτάµενον νεφέων σχεδόν: ἀλλὰ καὶ ἔµπης
λαίφεα πάντ᾽ ἐτίναξε, παραιθύξας πτερύγεσσιν.
οὐ γὰρ᾽ ὅγ᾽ αἰθερίοιο φυὴν ἔχεν οἰωνοῖο,
ἶσα δ᾽ ἐυξέστοις ὠκύπτερα πάλλεν ἐρετµοῖς,
δηρὸν δ᾽. οὐ µετέπειτα πολύστονον ἄιον αὐδὴν
ἧπαρ ἀνελκοµένοιο Προµηθέος: ἔκτυπε δ᾽ αἰθὴρ
οἰµωγῇ, µέσφ᾽ αὖτις ἀπ᾽ οὔρεος ἀίσσοντα
αἰετὸν ὠµηστὴν αὐτὴν ὁδὸν εἰσενόησαν.
They saw it at dusk over the highest part of the ship
Soaring with a sharp whir as high as the clouds, and
It shook everything like rags, whizzing by on its wings.
For it did not have the form of a bird of the air,
But swept its pinions like well-polished oars,
Too long. Not much later they heard
The dreadful cry of Prometheus stripped of his liver, and the
Ether resounded with his wailing, until they perceived it
Darting back from the mountain on the same route,
Sated with flesh (2.1251-1259).
The eagle is endowed with several characteristics that distance it from the mortal plane. Its role
as agent of Prometheus’ divine punishment vests the beast with supernatural associations.
Beyond this association, Apollonios’ description emphasizes specific unusual characteristics of
its motion and physiology. The height at which the Argonauts spot the creature sets it at a
physical remove from the terrestrial realm. The bird appears to operate at an altitude atypical
even for a “bird of the air,” high as the clouds; indeed, from the heroic perspective the sweep of
its massive wings seems “too long” (δηρὸν δ᾽) for the eagle to have the form of a normal bird.74
Furthermore, Apollonios likens the monster to a ship by describing its outstretched pinions as
oars propelling it at tremendous speed through the ether.
74
cf. Il. 2.298, where δηρὸν characterizes a period as longer than appropriate.
33
The eagle’s route is another significant feature of this description. The Argonauts catch
sight of the beast at dusk as the light of the sun wanes and withdraws along the western
horizon.75 This dynamic frames the eagle’s appearance in the last light of day as the beast
hastens eastward from an unspecified origin point on a course parallel with that of the Argo. The
eagle’s linear path thus mirrors in ethereal form the Kolkhis-bound marine route of the Argo.
This elemental separation allows the heroes to observe a portion of the route between two unseen
termini. Because the flight of this particular eagle bears mythological associations, the Argonauts
(and Apollonios’ readers) infer the locations of the distant termini, contextualizing their
experience within the spatial framework accessed through the myth of Prometheus.76 Apollonios
provides an additional means of accessing this distant space by supplying aural evidence of the
eagle’s presence at the eastern terminus. The cry of Prometheus offers the heroes a non-visual
means of extrapolating the eagle’s route beyond the range of mortal vision. Apollonios thus
paradoxically encourages the reader to envision the entire path of the eagle by integrating nonvisual means of perceiving spatial relationships into the heroic perspective shared by the reader.
In addition to demonstrating the capacity of the heroic perspective to grasp spatial
networks that extend beyond the bounds of human vision, the poet implicitly invites the reader to
apply these alternative modes of perception to their own reading of the Argo’s voyage by
juxtaposing celestial and maritime itineraries through the simile of eagle-as-Argo. The elemental
separation noted above facilitates perception of the eagle’s course. The bird’s supernatural speed
confers immediacy upon the vision of its path akin to a glance at a route sketched on a map: it is
easier to perceive the path of a distant object that moves at high speed because it covers the
75
Apollonios integrates into this description both of the semantic valences attributed to ἕσπερος, the evening and the
West, though the accusative form suggests an accusative of duration of time as the primary function here.
76
Apollonios primes the reader to visualize the eastern terminus by referring to the Kaukasos as the site of
Prometheus’ punishment immediately prior to the Argonauts sighting the eagle (2.1248-1250). The western terminus
remains uncertain, though the eagle’s role as an agent of Zeus suggests Olympos.
34
discernable route in a shorter amount of time.77 By applying the ship simile to this dynamic and
extending the descriptive lens to present a route with termini beyond the horizon, Apollonios
encourages the visualization of the entire Argonautic itinerary in a single sweeping panorama.
This vision recalls a striking simile applied to another celestial traveller in the poem, the goddess
Athena:
ὡς δ᾽ ὅτε τις πάτρηθεν ἀλώµενος, οἷά τε πολλὰ
πλαζόµεθ᾽ ἄνθρωποι τετληότες, οὐδέ τις αἶα
τηλουρός, πᾶσαι δὲ κατόψιοί εἰσι κέλευθοι,
σφωιτέρους δ᾽ ἐνόησε δόµους, ἄµυδις δὲ κέλευθος
ὑγρή τε τραφερή τ᾽ ἰνδάλλεται, ἄλλοτε δ᾽ ἄλλῃ
ὀξέα πορφύρων ἐπιµαίεται ὀφθαλµοῖσιν:
ὧς ἄρα καρπαλίµως κούρη Διὸς ἀίξασα
θῆκεν ἐπ᾽ ἀξείνοιο πόδας Θυνηίδος ἀκτῆς.
As when a man wandering from his homeland—such a thing as often
We roving men suffer, nor is any land
Distant, but all routes are visible—
Sees his own home, and at the same time appears the way
Both wet and dry, and now this way and that
He grasps flashing quickly with his eyes:
So swiftly did the daughter of Zeus dart
And placed her feet upon the inhospitable Thyneian promontory (2.541-548).
To convey the near-instantaneous quality of divine travel, Apollonios draws upon elements of
Homeric narration. He elaborates on the Homeric phrase “quick as thought” by describing the
mental processes of a traveller far from home.78 This description retains a thematic link with the
divine element in its affinity to the god’s-eye perspective adopted periodically throughout the
Iliad. The traveller’s vision aligns with the panoramic perspective elicited by the ship simile.
The ship and traveller similes discussed above demonstrate Apollonios’ ability to convey
the spatial contexts that stimulate the formulation of a geographical framework in the mind’s
eye. The poet establishes a number of foundational reference points accessible through the heroic
77
This principle can be illustrated by observing a meteor shower, in which individual “shooting stars” appear to take
on linear form due to the speed at which they enter the atmosphere. The Argonauts witness this very phenomenon
shortly after their departure from Kolkhis at 4.294-301. See discussion below.
78
cf. Od. 7.36.
35
perspective and may from this point dilate the descriptive lens to encompass regions inaccessible
from this perspective provided that he maintain a connection to narrative space and time. This
principle is particularly evident at the conclusion of the Kolkhis narrative, when Jason and
Medea encounter the serpent guarding the Fleece. Apollonios locates the point of access to the
sacred grove containing the Fleece within the river-oriented schematic map established at the
outset of the Kolkhis narrative. Beginning their course on the Phasis, which persists as the
aquatic thoroughfare serving Aietes’ vast domain, the Argonauts cruise upriver until they reach
Ram’s Rest:
τῆµος ἄρ᾽ Αἰσονίδης κούρη τ᾽ ἀπὸ νηὸς ἔβησαν
ποιήεντ᾽ ἀνὰ χῶρον ἵνα Kριοῦ καλέονται
Eὐναί, ὅθι πρῶτον κεκµηότα γούνατ᾽ ἔκαµψε,
νώτοισιν φορέων Μινυήιον υἷ᾽ Ἀθάµαντος.
ἐγγύθι δ᾽ αἰθαλόεντα πελεν βωµοῖο θέµεθλα,
ὅν ῥά ποτ᾽ Αἰολίδης Διὶ Φυξίῳ εἵσατο Φρίξος,
ῥέζων κεῖνο τέρας παγχρύσεον, ὥς οἱ ἔειπεν
Ἑρµείας πρόφρων ξυµβλήµενος. ἔνθ᾽ ἄρα τούς γε
Ἄργου φραδµοσύνῃσιν ἀριστῆες µεθέηκαν.
τὼ δὲ δι᾽ ἀτραπιτοῖο µεθ᾽ ἱερὸν ἄλσος ἵκοντο,
φηγὸν ἀπειρεσίην διζηµένω ᾗ ἔπι κῶας
βέβλητο, νεφέλῃ ἐναλίγκιον ἥ τ᾽ ἀνιόντος
ἠελίου φλογερῇσιν ἐρεύθεται ἀκτίνεσσιν.
Then Aison’s son and the maiden disembarked from the ship
Upon a grassy tract in a place called Ram’s Rest,
Where it first bent its tired knees,
Bearing the Minyan son of Athamas on its back.
And nearby was the sooty base of an altar
Which Phrixos son of Aiolos erected for Zeus Phyxios,
Sacrificing this gilded wonder as thoughtful Hermes
Advised in conversation. There
At the urging of Argos the heroes left them.
And the two of them arrived amidst the sacred grove via a shortcut
Seeking the immense oak upon which the Fleece
Was flung, like a cloud stained red
In the blazing rays of the rising sun (4.114-126).
Apollonios stresses the site’s cultic significance and indicates that the heroes follow the very
path blazed by Phrixos and the celestial ram a generation prior to the events of the Argonautika.
The Argonauts’ use of routes linked with the mythical past adds thematic depth to these
36
itineraries.79 Once again Argos contributes geographical familiarity with the region to the heroes’
progress, indicating the location of his father’s arrival on the ram as a suitable trailhead
facilitating access to the Fleece’s sacred grove.80 Apollonios’ diction stresses the direct quality of
the path (ἀτραπιτοῖο) linking the grove with the river.
This emphasis on the proximity of the Fleece’s grove to the Phasis takes on particular
significance in the ensuing description of Jason and Medea’s encounter with the guardian
serpent. In this passage, Apollonios exploits the Phasis as an element of a broader regional
network of rivers that telescope the descriptive range from lowland Kolkhis across the interior of
Asia. The poet deploys the serpent’s resounding hiss as a vehicle for shifting descriptive
focalization:
αὐτὰρ ὁ ἀντικρὺ περιµήκεα τείνετο δειρὴν
ὀξὺς ἀύπνοισι προϊδὼν ὄφις ὀφθαλµοῖσι
νισσοµένους: ῥοίζει δὲ πελώριον: ἀµφὶ δὲ µακραὶ
ἠιόνες ποταµοῖο καὶ ἄσπετον ἴαχεν ἄλσος.
ἔκλυον οἳ καὶ πολλὸν ἑκὰς Τιτηνίδος Αἴης
Κολχίδα γῆν ἐνέµοντο παρὰ προχοῇσι Λύκοιο,
ὅς τ᾽ ἀποκιδνάµενος ποταµοῦ κελάδοντος Ἀράξεω
Φάσιδι συµφέρεται ἱερὸν ῥόον, οἱ δὲ συνάµφω
Καυκασίην ἅλαδ᾽ εἰς ἓν ἐλαυνόµενοι προχέουσι:
δείµατι δ᾽ ἐξέγροντο λεχωίδες, ἀµφὶ δὲ παισὶ
νηπιάχοις, οἵ τέ σφιν ὑπ᾽ ἀγκαλίδεσσιν ἴαυον,
ῥοίζῳ παλλοµένοις χεῖρας βάλον ἀσχαλόωσαι.
But opposite them the serpent, keenly observing their approach
With sleepless eyes, extended its long neck,
And emitted a mighty hiss: and the long
Banks of the river and the unspeakable grove resounded.
Even they heard, those who far from Titanid Aia
Inhabited Kolkhian territory along the mouths of the Lykos,
Which, branching from the roaring Araxes,
Joins its sacred flow with Phasis: they jointly
Pour forth into the Kaukasian Sea, driven into a single stream.
But newborns were roused with terror, and around infant children
Who were sleeping in their arms,
79
The significance of the Istros river system as a mythical transcontinental highway is discussed below.
Note the structural similarity of 4.122 and 2.1260. The phrases Ἄργου φραδµοσύνῃσιν and Ἄργοιο δαηµοσύνῃσιν
are grammatical and semantic equivalents to one another. Argos’ geographical authority accrues a nearly formulaic
quality.
80
37
Anxious women encircled their hands for those shaken by the hiss (4.127-138).
This description shares its aural component with the eagle sequence noted above. In both cases,
sound facilitates access to distant locations. Sound is able to link two points with a common
experience by traversing the intervening distance almost instantly, as the case of Prometheus and
the eagle demonstrates. However, sound can also be described as resounding throughout a
specific area. The serpent’s prodigious hiss not only fills the immediate area, but also resounds
inland along a linear path supplied by the course of the Phasis and continues on along the
waterways of the interior. Thus sound again provides Apollonios with a means of dilating the
geographical range of description while tethering the distant regions to narrative time by sound’s
aforementioned capacity to instantly connect distant places.
The descriptive sequences treated above demonstrate Apollonios’ prudent distribution of
geographical detail and the variety of methods he uses to integrate these descriptions into the
narrative fabric of the epic. Discussion will now turn to the articulation of another river system—
the Istros—through an embedded narrative, demonstrating further means of integrating vast
spaces into the heroic perspective.
2.2 Istros: Historicizing Geography
Apollonios integrates the Argo’s novel route across the Balkan Peninsula into the epic’s
fabula space by associating this northern passage with historicizing accounts of conquest and
migration. He privileges one such account—the myth of Sesostris—with detailed explanation
within the narrative while conveying others through a network of intertextual allusions couched
as geographical reference-points. The former supply thematic foils to the journey of the
38
Argonauts themselves, while the latter color the vast extent of continental territory opened to
description by the dynamics of riverine geography.
Apollonios introduces a historicizing element to the Istros route from its first
manifestation as a product of Kolkhian Argos’ geographical knowledge. The poet deprives the
Argonauts (and his readers) awareness of this riverine escape route until the heroes are forced to
seek it out by the fraught circumstances in which they depart Kolkhis. Jason returns the attention
of the heroes to Phineus’ instructions as they pause briefly on the shores of Paphlagonia:
αὐτίκα δ᾽ Αἰσονίδης ἐµνήσατο, σὺν δὲ καὶ ὧλλοι
ἥρωες, Φινῆος ὃ δὴ πλόον ἄλλον ἔειπεν
ἐξ Αἴης ἔσσεσθαι: ἀνώιστος δ᾽ ἐτέτυκτο
πᾶσιν ὁµῶς. Ἄργος δὲ λιλαιοµένοις ἀγόρευσεν.
And immediately Aison’s son recalled, and with him the other
Heroes, Phineus, who proclaimed that the voyage back from Aia
Would be different, but one nevertheless unanticipated
By all. But Argos addressed them as they yearned (4.253-256).
Argos fills a role akin to that of Phineus for the desperate heroes. These two figures possess
knowledge that functions in the narrative as a key that unlocks the next stretch of the journey,
without which any progress is impossible. It is a role with a deep history stretching back to
figures of the Odyssey, namely Kirke and Teiresias, who together instruct Odysseus in the
requisite steps to be taken in accomplishing the hero’s delayed nostos.81 Apollonios extracts and
expands upon this element of the epic voyage by constructing a geographical context that
requires multiple guides to navigate successfully. He also varies the nature of the information
supplied by these guides. Though functionally parallel, the routes conveyed by Phineus and
Argos differ significantly from one another in source and content.
81
It is a riddle of the version of the Odyssey transmitted to us that despite Kirke’s insistence that a journey to the
Underworld and consultation of Teiresias are necessary to ensure a successful nostos, the blind prophet provides no
information about the precise route to take. Instead Kirke herself provides this information upon the heroes’ return
to Aiaia (Od. 12.37-110).
39
Whereas Phineus accesses the geographical knowledge of the Argonauts’ Euxine
itinerary through his prophetic ability, Argos possesses this information as an element of his
strictly geographical expertise, a characteristic applied broadly to the Kolkhians as a people in
Book 4.82 Argos first indicates to the heroes the route’s specific relevance to his personal history
by reminding them of the sons of Phrixos’ ill-fated expedition in search of the Aiolids’ ancestral
seat, Orchomenos.83 The brothers had intended to bypass the lethal Symplegades by shunning the
southern passage to the Aegean in favor of a northern route along the Istros. Argos explains the
source of his familiarity with this unanticipated route:
ἔστιν γὰρ πλόος ἄλλος, ὃν ἀθανάτων ἱερῆες
πέφραδον οἳ Θήβης Τριτωνίδος ἐκγεγάασιν.
οὔπω τείρεα πάντα τά τ᾽ οὐρανῷ εἱλίσσονται,
οὐδέ τί πω Δαναῶν ἱερὸν γένος ἦεν ἀκοῦσαι
πευθοµένοις: οἶοι δ᾽ ἔσαν Ἀρκάδες Ἀπιδανῆες,
Ἀρκάδες, οἳ καὶ πρόσθε σεληναίης ὑδέονται
ζώειν, φηγὸν ἔδοντες ἐν οὔρεσιν: οὐδὲ Πελασγὶς
χθὼν τότε κυδαλίµοισιν ἀνάσσετο Δευκαλίδῃσιν,
ἦµος ὅτ᾽ Ἠερίη πολυλήιος ἐκλήιστο,
µήτηρ Αἴγυπτος προτερηγενέων αἰζηῶν,
καὶ ποταµὸς Τρίτων ἠύρροος ᾧ ὕπο πᾶσα
ἄρδεται Ἠερίη — Διόθεν δέ µιν οὔποτε δεύει
ὄµβρος ἅλις — προχοῇσι δ᾽ ἀνασταχύουσιν ἄρουραι.
ἔνθεν δή τινά φασι πέριξ διὰ πᾶσαν ὁδεῦσαι
Εὐρώπην Ἀσίην τε, βίῃ καὶ κάρτεϊ λαῶν
σφωιτέρων θάρσει τε πεποιθότα: µυρία δ᾽ ἄστη
νάσσατ᾽ ἐποιχόµενος, τὰ µὲν ἤ ποθι ναιετάουσιν
ἠὲ καὶ οὔ: πουλὺς γὰρ ἄδην ἐπενήνοθεν αἰών.
Aἶά γε µὴν ἔτι νῦν µένει ἔµπεδον υἱωνοί τε
τῶνδ᾽ ἀνδρῶν οὓς ὅγε καθίσσατο ναιέµεν Αἶαν,
οἳ δή τοι γραπτῦς πατέρων ἕθεν εἰρύονται,
κύρβιας οἷς ἔνι πᾶσαι ὁδοὶ καὶ πείρατ᾽ ἔασιν
ὑγρῆς τε τραφερῆς τε πέριξ ἐπινισοµένοισιν.
82
Aietes claims sufficient knowledge of the inhabited world’s dimensions to critique the voyage of the sons of
Phrixos (3.307-313). This knowledge derives from firsthand experience from the god’s-eye perspective while
driving his sister Kirke westward to Aiaia on the chariot of Helios, rendering him the Argonautika’s most
geographically savvy mortal character. For Kirke’s role as guide in the Odyssey, see below. The extensive
geographical knowledge and navigational skills of the Kolkhian fleet in pursuit of the Argo will also be treated
below.
83
The Argonauts happen upon the marooned brothers on the Island of Ares, prophesied by Phineus in vague terms
at 2.388-391 and realized in the narrative at 2.1090-1230.
40
For there is another navigable route, which the priests of the immortals
Have made known, those who are descended from Tritonian Thebe.
Not yet did there exist any constellations that wheel in heaven,
Nor was there any holy race of Danaans to ascertain
For those inquiring. There were only the Apidanian Arkadians,
Arkadians, who are said to have lived even before the moon,
Eating acorns in the mountains. Nor was the Pelasgian
Land then ruled by the famous sons of Deukalion,
At the time when Egypt, mother of mighty ancestors,
Was called Eërië rich in grain,
And the broad-flowing river Triton, by which all
Eërië is irrigated, and from Zeus the rain never fails her,
And with its floods the fields produce grain in abundance.
They say that a certain main ventured thence in a circuit through all
Europe and Asia, trusting in the force and might and courage of
His hosts: numberless cities
He colonized and dominated, some that they still inhabit,
And others not, for a sufficiently lengthy period has since accrued.
Aia indeed even now stands firm, and the descendants
Of those whom that man established to inhabit Aia,
Who maintain their fathers’ scrawls,
Pore over tablets, upon which are all routes and the limits
Of water and land all around (4.257-281).
Argos provides a historicizing summary of the transmission of this geographical information
across space and time. He claims the authority of an ancient tradition whose source is placed at a
tremendous spatial and temporal remove from the events of the Argonautika. It is difficult,
however, to determine Argos’ means of access to this tradition amidst the apparent chronological
inconsistencies that define it. How does Argos access the knowledge of a hidden northern
passage, and in what manner is this geographical information rendered for his use? It is
important to ask these questions of the text in the pursuit of Apollonios’ methods of integrating a
geographical framework into his poetics. This passage demonstrates the integration of geography
into the internal logic of the epic, justifying at length a secondary character’s possession of
privileged information through the construction of a historicizing background narrative and
further appeals to the commonplaces of Greek accounts of Egypt.
41
This “alternate route” is attributed to priests descended from Tritonian Thebe, an
eponymous female figure associated with the foundation of Egyptian Thebes.84 The religious
character of those responsible for promulgating this information vests its practical spatial data
with the quality of a sacred text, though Argos’ use of φράζειν (4.258) suggests readily
accessible information rather than the closely guarded tenets of a mystery cult. Furthermore, in
this particular context—the transmission of an obscure itinerary through terra incognita—the
verb echoes similar circumstances in the epic tradition. It is particularly reminiscent of
Odysseus’ description of Kirke’s instructions for the nekuia of Book 11:
νῆα µὲν ἔνθ᾽ ἐλθόντες ἐκέλσαµεν, ἐκ δὲ τὰ µῆλα
εἱλόµεθ᾽: αὐτοὶ δ᾽ αὖτε παρὰ ῥόον Ὠκεανοῖο
ᾔοµεν, ὄφρ᾽ ἐς χῶρον ἀφικόµεθ᾽, ὃν φράσε Κίρκη.
And upon arrival we ran the ship aground, and brought out
The sheep; and beside the stream of Okeanos
We ventured on until we reached the place that Kirke indicated (Od. 11.20-22).
In spite of the circumstantial similarity, however, this passage demonstrates a significant
difference between the φράζειν of Argos and Odysseus. The object of Odysseus’ φράζειν is more
limited (hence clearer) than that of Argos’ Egyptian priests, indicating the transmission of a
specific terminus rather than the sequence of waypoints constituting an itinerary.85 Moreover, the
nature of Argos’ tradition of an alternate route remains unclear in spite of the relatively long
description that Apollonios provides. Argos does not specify the place of these priests in the
84
The patronymic Τριτωνίς in the context of this Egyptian tradition denotes the nymph Thebe’s descent from the
Nile (ποταµὸς Τρίτων at 4.269). Hunter 2015 notes that we need not read ἐκγεγάασιν in too strict a sense: “From a
Greek perspective the inhabitants of Thebes are all ‘descendants of Thebe’” (loc. cit.). However, the descent of these
priests nests well with the divine ancestry so thoroughly attributed to the Argonauts in the catalogue of heroes at
1.23-233.
85
Odysseus quotes Kirke’s exact instructions earlier in his narrative (10.504-540). Though Kirke does not supply an
itinerary to accompany her instructions for Odysseus’ journey to the shores of Okeanos, she does provide a detailed
description of the location at which they are to perform the nekuia. She also describes the way home to Ithaka from
Aiaia upon the heroes’ return from their encounter with the dead (12.37-110).
42
chronology of the route’s transmission.86 Further elaboration of the mytho-historical
circumstances relevent to the tradition complicates the picture. Argos seems to indicate that these
priests are responsible for the promulgation of the route and hence his own familiarity with it,
suggesting a point in the recent past, yet he proceeds to describe a period of deepest antiquity
during which a conflicting source of transmission is introduced. In the brief narrative initiated by
φασι (4.272), the geographical data that would facilitate the formulation of this route is
apparently collected in the field by the anonymous commander, likely the Sesostris described in
similar terms by Herodotos and Diodoros.87 The foundation of colonies and preservation of
written records dating from the period of this man’s conquests traces the route’s transmission
from its discovery to the generation contemporary with the Argonauts.
To whom Argos credits the account of Sesostris’ conquests is also unclear, a feature of
the narrative the broaches the topic of dubious attribution and the credibility of geographical
discourse. One interpretive route is to accept the Egyptian priests as the assumed subjects of
φασι, though this raises the question of how Argos gains access to their account in the first place,
isolated as Kolkhis is from Egypt.88 Unlikely as direct communication between Kolkhis and
Egypt seems in the context of the general isolation characterizing most of the communities
encountered in the Argonautika, the parallels with Herodotos’ prefatory claim to direct
consultation of the Egyptian priests as the primary source for the historian’s account of major
developments in Egyptian political history (including the conquests of Sesostris) are too obvious
to ignore:
86
The perfect form πέφραδον indicates only that the information was promulgated at some point prior to the voyage
of the sons of Phrixos.
87
See Herodotos 2.102-111 and Diodoros 1.53-53, in which this figure is referred to as Sesoösis.
88
The inscribed tablets preserved from the time of Sesostris’ conquests would not be nearly as impressive a survival
if communication with Egypt had remained consistent throughout the intervening period, in which Argos himself
acknowledges that the network of countless settlements ruled by Sesostris had fragmented (4.276).
43
µέχρι µὲν τούτου ὄψις τε ἐµὴ καὶ γνώµη καὶ ἱστορίη ταῦτα λέγουσα ἐστί, τὸ δὲ
ἀπὸ τοῦδε Αἰγυπτίους ἔρχοµαι λόγους ἐρέων κατὰ τὰ ἤκουον: προσέσται δὲ
αὐτοῖσί τι καὶ τῆς ἐµῆς ὄψιος. Μῖνα τὸν πρῶτον βασιλεύσαντα Αἰγύπτου οἱ ἱρέες
ἔλεγον τοῦτο µὲν ἀπογεφυρῶσαι τὴν Μέµφιν. τὸν γὰρ ποταµὸν πάντα ῥέειν παρὰ
τὸ ὄρος τὸ ψάµµινον πρὸς Λιβύης, τὸν δὲ Μῖνα ἄνωθεν, ὅσον τε ἑκατὸν σταδίους
ἀπὸ Μέµφιος, τὸν πρὸς µεσαµβρίης ἀγκῶνα προσχώσαντα τὸ µὲν ἀρχαῖον
ῥέεθρον ἀποξηρῆναι, τὸν δὲ ποταµὸν ὀχετεῦσαι τὸ µέσον τῶν ὀρέων ῥέειν.
Up to this point my own observation, consideration, and inquiry are responsible for rendering an
account of these things, but from this point on I will proceed to report the accounts of the
Egyptians themselves in accordance with what I myself have heard; however, in addition to these
there is also something of my own observations. The priests say that Min, Egypt’s first ruler,
constructed dikes around Memphis. For the entire river flowed alongside the sandy mountain
facing Libya, but Min drained the ancient bed of the river as much as one hundred stades from
Memphis, and conducted the river so as flow between the mountains (2.99.1-2).
Following the pattern that he establishes here with the reign of Min, Herodotos introduces each
subsequent episode of his Egyptian political history by restating that the priests are the source of
this information.89 Each episode is thus rendered in oratio obliqua. Apollonios, by contrast,
introduces the priests at 4.257 but continues the description of the world’s primordial state in
oratio recta, suggesting that Argos is not repeating the words of the priests. He delays his
transition to oratio obliqua until his treatment of the conquests of Sesostris, perhaps intending
instead to equate the temporal context of the conquests with the promulgation of the northern
passage on the priests’ initiative.
By an alternate interpretation, Argos’ use of φασι may indicate the oral tradition of his
own people, the Kolkhians. However, the most attractive solution would be to accept the
testimony of the Egyptian priests themselves as the source of this account, preserved among the
numberless colonies on inscribed tablets. This would link the priests’ account with the
Kolkhians’ ancestral records. Hence the account of the priests may logically be rendered in both
89
See 2.100.1, 2.102.2-3, 2.112.1, 2.116.1, 2.118.1, 2.120.1, 2.124.1, 2.126.1, 2.136.1, 2.139.1, 2.142.1, and 2.143.
Herodotos notes a transition back to his typical eclectic pool of sources at the end of this portion of the Egyptian
excursus (2.147.1): ταῦτα µέν νυν αὐτοὶ Αἰγύπτιοι λέγουσι: ὅσα δὲ οἵ τε ἄλλοι ἄνθρωποι καὶ Αἰγύπτιοι λέγουσι
ὁµολογέοντες τοῖσι ἄλλοισι κατὰ ταύτην τὴν χώρην γενέσθαι, ταῦτ᾽ ἤδη φράσω: προσέσται δέ τι αὐτοῖσι καὶ τῆς
ἐµῆς ὄψιος.
44
the perfect and present tenses by Argos, the former instance denoting the original act of
inscribing the tablets, and the latter indicating the immortal voice of the inscriptions echoing on
through subsequent generations. This syncretistic interpretation colors Argos’ description of the
inscriptions with the aforementioned religious associations characterizing the transmission of this
geographical knowledge.
Argos identifies Egypt as the physical source of both the geographical knowledge of the
Istros and the individual responsible for pioneering the route. Apollonios dwells on the
particulars of this tradition in order to emphasize its deep antiquity and note the circumstances in
which the account survived the long centuries that witnessed the gradual collapse of the empire
carved out by Sesostris.90 Indeed, so enduring does the account prove that it outlasts even the
memory of the mighty conqueror’s name.91 The prospect of the route’s preservation in a textual
or graphic form offers insight into Apollonios’ conception of the various means by which
geographical information is encoded and transmitted. The description of the tablets upon which
the ancestral records are preserved in Kolkhis does not specify the exact nature of the text or
graven diagram that preserves the route. The potential interpretations of 4.279-281 vary
dramatically due to the broad semantic range of the terms therein. The most basic point of
90
At 2.106 Herodotos claims that the pillars of Sesostris could still be found as far north as Skythia and Thrace in
his day, taking their absence from more distant territories as evidence for the northern limits of this conqueror’s
empire. Further on in his narrative (2.106) he notes the location of three carvings that he claims commemorate the
triumphs of Sesostris: one in Palestine (which he claims to have seen in person) and two in Ionia: one on the road
between Ephesos and Phokaia and one between Sardis and Smyrna. Of these three carvings, two may be identified
with known reliefs: in the mountains north of Nahr al-Kalb in present-day Lebanon (in the former region of
Palestine) can be found a monumental relief of Ramesses II and in the Karabel Pass between Izmir and Sardes is a
strikingly similar relief of the Hittite King Tarkasnawa. Neither of these monuments commemorate the conquests of
the historical Sesostris—Egyptian Senusret III—but their inclusion in the account of Herodotos, along with the
apparent existence (or invention) of similar reliefs in Skythia and Thrace, are testament to the tenacity of this figure,
along with the pattern of Egyptian preeminence he represents, in the engagement of Greek travellers, conquerors,
and settlers with local objects of deep antiquity.
91
Though we cannot be certain that Apollonios intended to convey the obliterating effects of time in Argos’
omission of Sesostris’ name, the contrast between τινά and the surfeit of proper nouns studding this passage and the
ensuing travel narrative conveys this regardless of poetic intent. The obvious reference to the account preserved in
Herodotos and Diodoros further highlights the oddity of the omission.
45
contention in the interpretation of these lines is whether to assume a textual or graphic
representation of the “routes and limits” described by Argos. Further problems arise on either
side of this fundamental issue. If a text, what genre does it conform to? Does it convey the routes
as an extension of a historiographical account of Sesostris’ conquests or as an independent work
of geography akin to a Greek periplous? Is its descriptive framework hodological or quasicartographical? If graphic, what visual metaphors does it employ to convey the dimensions and
locations of the route in question? Lexical clues support arguments answering each of these
questions. Apollonios clouds his description in frustrating obscurity. His lack of clarity turns the
reader’s attention from the details of transmission to its thematic significance.
The preservation and transmission of this knowledge in Kolkhis illustrates the thematic
significance of writing as a means of communicating geographical information across vast gulfs
of space and time. I have already noted the prevalence of oral communication of geographical
information throughout the epic. Apollonios demonstrates an uncommon ability to envision and
describe space from multiple descriptive standpoints while maintaining the cohesion of his linear
narrative. Here the poet demonstrates an understanding of the historical significance of textually
transmitted geographical information by illustrating its advantage over the oral tradition.
Apollonios emphasizes the ease with which the Kolkhians access and apply age-old geographical
information to their seafaring tradition through Argos’ pivotal role in effecting the Argo’s escape
and the corresponding maneuvers of the birdlike Kolkhian fleet.92 Through this characterization,
the poet establishes a contrast between the comparably limited geographical knowledge of the
Argonauts and the detailed erudition of Argos and the Kolkhians.
92
The revelation of the Kolkhian naval forces at 4.236-240 supplies another instance of shifting descriptive
standpoint akin to that cued by the eagle-as-ship metaphor discussed above. Likened in number to a vast flock of
birds, the fleet acquires an aerial character rich in implicit associations: the ability to traverse the landscape in a
direct line, access to the “bird’s eye” perspective, and tremendous speed.
46
An examination of Argos’ revelation of the Istros route itself draws attention to the scant
detail he chooses to provide. This comparatively brief enumeration of the route ahead invites
comparison with the instructions of Phineus and requires a thorough discussion of the
implications of the choice details he works into this description. Argos’ mention of the routes
preserved on the Kolkhian tablets cues a transition to discussion of the route in question:
ἔστι δέ τις ποταµός, ὕπατον κέρας Ὠκεανοῖο,
εὐρύς τε προβαθής τε καὶ ὁλκάδι νηὶ περῆσαι:
Ἴστρον µιν καλέοντες ἑκὰς διετεκµήραντο:
ὅς δ’ ἤτοι τείως µὲν ἀπείρονα τέµνετ᾽ ἄρουραν
εἷς οἶος, πηγαὶ γὰρ ὑπὲρ πνοιῆς βορέαο
Ῥιπαίοις ἐν ὄρεσσιν ἀπόπροθι µορµύρουσιν:
ἀλλ᾽ ὁπόταν Θρῃκῶν Σκυθέων τ᾽ ἐπιβήσεται οὔρους,
ἔνθα διχῆ, τὸ µὲν ἔνθα µετ᾽ ἠοίην ἅλα βάλλει
τῇδ᾽ ὕδωρ, τὸ δ᾽ ὄπισθε βαθὺν διὰ κόλπον ἵησι
σχιζόµενος πόντου Τρινακρίου εἰσανέχοντα,
γαίῃ ὃς ὑµετέρῃ παρακέκλιται, εἰ ἐτεὸν δὴ
ὑµετέρης γαίης Ἀχελώιος ἐξανίησιν.
There is a certain river, the northernmost branch of Okeanos,
Broad and sufficiently deep even for a cargo-ship’s passage.
Having named it Istros they charted its course a great distance,
Which divides endless plowland for a time
Single and solitary, for beyond the blast of the north wind its springs
Seethe far off in the Rhipaian Mountains.
But as soon as it encroaches on the borders of the Thracians and Skythians
There it splits in two; one stream enters the eastern sea,
The other reverses course, cleaving through a deep gulf
Of the Trinakrian Sea,
Which inclines toward your land, if the Acheloös truly
Issues forth from your land (4.282-293).
For his description of the northern passage out of the Euxine, Argos chooses the course of the
Istros as his organizational principle. In doing so, the Kolkhian diverges from the descriptive
mode of prior guides, who offer prescriptive instructions that detail the successive stages of an
itinerary and appeal to regional topography as a means of orientation. Argos, by contrast, adopts
the course of the river itself as a descriptive standpoint from which he describes the adjacent
territory. He first constructs the geographical framework across which the Argonauts will chart
their route over the course of the ensuing narrative, rather than first enumerating the itinerary and
47
integrating geographical reference points ad hoc as Phineus did. Argos’ description thus aligns
closely with the Phasis-centered description of Kolkhis discussed above. This divergent approach
establishes a broader geographical framework than the prescriptive mode adopted by Phineus, as
it integrates information otherwise inaccessible from the heroic perspective. As a result, the
ensuing account of the Argo’s river cruise diverges somewhat from Argos’ geographical
description to reflect the shift in descriptive focalization to that of the Argonauts themselves.
Before describing the river’s course in relation to the surrounding landscape, Argos first
sketches the character of the river itself. Apollonios integrates a great deal of intertext into
Argos’ description of the Istros, beginning with the epic formula ἔστι δέ τις and specifying
ποταµός.93 Argos alludes to the river’s place in the geographical scheme of the epic tradition by
invoking the great Okeanos so emphatically dismissed by Classical Greek critics.94 The reference
to this tradition recalls prior iterations of the Argo’s return voyage, some of which traced the
ship’s course along the northern and southern arms of the mythical river.95 Apollonios strikes a
balance between the epic tradition and contemporary geography by invoking the mythical
genealogy of the great rivers, all of which traditionally descend from mighty Okeanos.96 Through
allusion to oceanic genealogy, Apollonios acknowledges his story’s roots in a period of limited
horizons and avoids linking his geographical framework with so controversial a body of water.97
93
Nestor begins a description of his homeland ἔστι δέ τις ποταµός at Il. 11.723. The shorter prefatory formula
occurs elsewhere in the Iliad at 2.811 (the sema of Myrine) and 11.711 (the Pylian polis Thryoëssa).
94
Herodotos rejects the antiquated concept of all-encompassing Okeanos, which he associates with the Ionian
logographers and early cartography, particularly the work of Hekataios (see 2.23, 4.8.2, and 4.36.2).
95
For Argo’s voyage on the stream of Okeanos, see Hesiod fr. 241, Pindar Pythian 4, Antimachos fr. 76 Matthews,
Timaios (FGrHist. 566 F85), and Skymnos of Chios fr. 5 Gisinger. For a brief discussion the voyage’s various
routes in the tradition, consult Chapter 1.
96
Hesiod supplies this genealogy in his catalog of rivers at Th. 337-370. The phrase κέρας Ὠκεανοῖο is elsewhere
used by Hesiod to describe the Styx (Th. 789). A hypothetical source of the Istros in the stream of Okeanos likely
derived from its traditional characterization as a European Nile, the sources of which were placed by one tradition at
Okeanos (attested at Herodotos 2.21).
97
For the vitriolic character of ancient criticism associated with the concept of Okeanos, Herodotos supplies a
particularly illustrative example: γελῶ δὲ ὁρέων γῆς περιόδους γράψαντας πολλοὺς ἤδη καὶ οὐδένα νοονεχόντως
ἐξηγησάµενον: οἳ Ὠκεανόν τε ῥέοντα γράφουσι πέριξ τὴν γῆν ἐοῦσαν κυκλοτερέα ὡς ἀπὸ τόρνου, καὶ τὴν Ἀσίην τῇ
48
Argos’ description does, however, retain a further intertextual link to epic Okeanos. The verb
µορµύρειν, applied at 4.287 to the headwaters of Istros, designates the roar of the sea in earlier
epic.98 Use of this vivid descriptor preserves some of mighty Okeanos’ power in the aquatic
germ of Istros.
Argos’ reference to the Rhipaian Mountains further complicates the categorization of
Argonautika’s geographical framework. This mountain range serves as a consistent northern
boundary to the oikoumene in various geographies of the Archaic and Classical periods.99 Their
function as a dramatic linear feature of the earth’s hypothetical northern fringes ensures their
persistent recurrence in the tradition of Classical geography even during periods of broadened
Greek exploration. The popular etymology of the name “Rhipaian” associates this range with the
blasts of the North Wind and by extension the utopian land of the Hyperboreans.100 As a
consequence of their persistence in the geographical tradition, the range undergoes periodic
reorientation to reflect the expanding horizons of Greek exploration. Writers place them just
beyond the limits of these horizons or assimilate them with actual mountain ranges in Central
and Northern Europe.101 Apollonios’ placement of the sources of Istros in this mythical range
obscures the river’s upper courses in the ever-shifting geography of the oikoumene’s northern
fringes.102 Despite this lack of precise geographical contextualization and the contested status of
the Rhipaian Mountains, the Argo’s path remains clear. Because the heroes’ itinerary traverses
Εὐρώπῃ ποιεύντων ἴσην. ἐν ὀλίγοισι γὰρ ἐγὼ δηλώσω µέγαθός τε ἑκάστης αὐτέων καὶ οἵη τις ἐστὶ ἐς γραφὴν
ἑκάστη (4.36.2).
98
See Il. 5.599 (the surge of waves breaking on shore) and 18.403 (the frothing stream of Okeanos); cf. the
application of the participle to the River Xanthos, reflecting its gore-choked flood, at 21.325.
99
For references to this fabled northern range, see Sophocles, Oed. Col. 1248, Hekataios of Abdera at Aelian, H.A.
11.1, Aristotle, Meteor. 1.13,
100
For this etymology, see Damastes of Sigeion at Steph. Byz. s.v. Ὑπερβόρεοι.
101
Finkelberg 1998 argues for a late classical association with the Alps, a range that otherwise appears surprisingly
late in the extant literary tradition despite its proximity to Greek settlements on northern shores of the Adriatic and
Liguria.
102
Apollonios follows Aeschylus (Sch. ad Ap. Rh. 4.284) in locating the sources of Istros in the Rhipaian range.
49
only a portion of the Istros’ course, the incursion of these mythical mountains proves as
inconsequential a detail as the reference to Okeanos discussed above. To describe this
geographical contrast in narratological terms, these references to fabulous northern topography
frame the Argonautika’s carefully realized story space in an ambiguous fabula space where
features of dubious credibility are free to exist as a nebulous system of geographical referencepoints separate from the experience of the Argonauts themselves.103
Argos emphasizes the Istros’ navigable quality and provides specific information about
its course in the remainder of his prefatory description, priming the reader for the Argo-focalized
description of the ship’s voyage through the interior. He notes the breadth and depth of its
channel, sufficient to accommodate a holkas, a broad-beamed cargo ship. The appearance of this
term in an epic context seems a blatant anachronism, or at the very least a prosaic intrusion,
given its absence from the vocabulary of the extant epic tradition. Its employment as a kind of
standard for the evaluation of a river’s navigability is uniquely suited in this epic context to the
circumstances of the Argo’s voyage, appealing to the reader’s presumed familiarity with the
relative size of a cargo ship compared to the slim contours of an oared galley such as Argo.
Apollonios thus appeals to contemporary Greek nautical traditions in order to convey the
navigability of Istros.
Aside from navigability, the other feature of the Istros integral to the river’s use as a
passage west is the bifurcation of its course. Argos claims that a fork exists in the Istros along the
borders of the Skythians and Thracians (4.288). The use of these two tribes in particular as
orientational reference points suggests the mythical fork’s location along the Lower Danube,
which divided the extensive territories of the populations designated by these two ethnic
103
As Chapter 3 demonstrates, the Argo’s path comes dangerously close to this fundamental spatial divide in the
journey up the Eridanos.
50
categories. The association of the Istros with the territories of these particular ethnoi is
problematic when read in conjunction with Classical accounts of the interior region, which place
the primary territory of the Skythians far to the northeast of the Istros in the pasturelands north of
Lake Maiotis and the Tauric Chersonese.104 From a coastal perspective such as that of the late
Classical Periplous of Pseudo-Skylax, however, the sequence of ethnic territory running
clockwise around the Euxine places the Skythians immediately after the Thracians, between
which regions lies the mouth of the Istros and the eponymous Greek colonial foundation.105
Apollonios thus projects the ethnic categories of the coast onto the interior of the Balkans, an
overt attempt to fill in gaps in the knowledge of contemporary geography corresponding with the
innovative riverine geographical framework of Book 4.
Argos’ account of the mytho-historical and spatial context of the Istros route further
demonstrates the descriptive innovations introduced along the Phasis and introduces a temporal
dimension to internal dynamics of geography as an element of characterization in the narrative.
Apollonios employs a riverine organizational principle to the Kolkhian’s description that shifts
the descriptive standpoint to permit to the reader glimpses of distant geography relegated to the
narratological fabula space. The historicizing account wherein Argos details the transmission of
this geographical information through space and time serves as an internal commentary on the
geographical habit that illustrates Apollonios’ evaluation of this practice. In the following
chapter, discussion will turn to the poet’s Argo-focalized geographical descriptions in the
ensuing narrative of the heroes’ traversal of the spatial framework established here.
104
See especially Herodotos 4.99-101. The territory trends northward from the mouth of the Istros rather than
following the river inland. Herodotos provides a brief description of the river’s course through the interior of
Europe, enumerating a sequence of tributaries and placing its sources in the far west (4.48-50).
105
See Pseudo-Skylax 67.9-68.1.
51
3. Two Approaches to Riverine Itineraries
3.1 Istros: Cruising the Continent
In Chapter 2 I introduced the versatile standpoint afforded to geographical description by
the use of a riverine organizational principle introduced with Apollonios’ synoptic description of
Kolkhis focalized on the Phasis and Argos’ temporally integrated description of the Istros. I now
turn to the traversal of Istros and Eridanos by the Argonauts themselves. This chapter continues
the treatment of Apollonios’ methods of integrating multidimensional descriptions of space into
the narrative by demonstrating the polyvalent character of experienced space. The Istros and
Eridanos systems in particular reveal the tight interlacing of hodological narration and quasicartographical description that enables the narrator to supplement the Argo’s immediate tract of
experienced space with swaths of continental geography. As demonstrated in previous chapters,
this multidimensional descriptive mode deepens the poetic landscape, furnishes numerous
intertextual links with a broad range of texts, and confers further thematic significance upon the
route.
Apollonios treats the course of Istros twice over the course of Book 4, privileging this
segment of the Argonautic itinerary with both a synoptic description voiced by an internal
narrator and a sequential account of the heroes’ route described by the primary narrator. Through
the embedded narration of Argos son of Phrixos, he provides a synoptic survey of the river as a
geographical feature, tracing its course from the Rhipaian Mountains to the Euxine Sea. This
succinct hydrographic description prefaces the narrator’s treatment of the river in the epic’s
temporal sequence. The sequential priority of Argos’ hydrography serves as a plot device
52
explaining the river’s function as an escape route, but also presents to the reader the relevant
geographical framework prior to the heroes’ own experience of this space. As a consequence of
the juxtaposition of these two types of description, every nugget of spatial data contained therein
may be analyzed both in the context of the immediate description and in relation to the broader
framework constructed of material from both perspectives.106 Such an analysis forms Part One of
Chapter 3. Discussion first treats the topographical and regional detail articulated along the route,
after which it will treat characteristics of descriptive standpoint and range in relation to the
narrative’s structure.
The poet’s description of the Istros voyage is articulated as a sequence of topographical
reference points and regions of a type common to other hodological narrative segments in the
epic. A crucial distinction that sets this particular itinerary apart from other hodological
descriptions of this kind, however, is its division into a series of variant pathways traced briefly
through the established geographical framework by references to both Argos’ most recent speech
and more distant descriptions of the outbound route.107 Three parties depart the Euxine in this
passage: the Argonauts themselves, a group of Kolkhians led by Apsyrtos, and a second group of
Kolkhians. The first group of Kolkhians issues forth from the Symplegades into the Aegean
while the second group pursues the Argonauts into the narrow confines of the Istros. The use of
specific topographical features as reference points for the description of these variant routes and
relation of each to the others is at this juncture crucial to the reader’s understanding of the
sequence of events leading to the next major stationary episode, the murder of Apsyrtos in the
106
I specify these two contexts—immediate description and broader geographical framework—in order to introduce
the particular qualities of this juxtaposition that I treat throughout the first part of Chapter 3 in relation to the central
question of this thesis: the contribution of Apollonios’ mingling of hodological and quasi-cartographical
perspectives. There are of course numerous contexts in which to situate data related by these descriptions (e.g.
literary intertext, relevant real-world topography, mythological tradition, etc.). I remain cognizant of these contexts
and appeal to them frequently as in previous chapters.
107
I return to this unusual feature of 4.298-337 in the discussion of the Istros narrative’s structure below.
53
Adriatic. Hence there is greater reliance upon the geographical framework outlined by Argos and
the still broader network of topographical features enumerated in Books 1 and 2, though some
fresh geographical description is supplied in addition:
γηθόσυνοι δὲ, Λύκοιο καταυτόθι παῖδα λιπόντες,
λαίφεσι πεπταµένοισιν ὑπεὶρ ἅλα ναυτίλλοντο
οὔρεα Παφλαγόνων θηεύµενοι: οὐδὲ Κάραµβιν
γνάµψαν, ἐπεὶ πνοιαί τε καὶ οὐρανίου πυρὸς αἴγλη
µίµνεν ἕως Ἴστροιο µέγαν ῥόον εἰσαφίκοντο.
Κόλχοι δ᾽ αὖτ᾽, ἄλλοι µέν ἐτώσια µαστεύοντες
Κυανέας Πόντοιο διὲκ πέτρας ἐπέρησαν,
ἄλλοι δ᾽ αὖ ποταµὸν µετεκίαθον, οἷσιν ἄνασσεν
Ἄψυρτος, Καλὸν δὲ διὰ στόµα πεῖρε λιασθείς:
τῶ καὶ ὑπέφθη τούς γε βαλὼν ὕπερ αὐχένα γαίης
κόλπον ἔσω πόντοιο πανέσχατον Ἰονίοιο.
Ἴστρῳ γάρ τις νῆσος ἐέργεται οὔνοµα Πεύκη
τριγλώχιν, εὖρος µὲν ἐς αἰγιαλοὺς ἀνέχουσα,
στεινὸν δ᾽ αὖτ᾽ ἀγκῶνα ποτὶ ῥόον: ἀµφὶ δὲ δοιαὶ
σχίζονται προχοαί: τὴν µὲν καλέουσι Νάρηκος:
τὴν δ᾽ ὑπὸ τῇ νεάτῃ Καλὸν στόµα: τῇδὲ διαπρὸ
Ἄψυρτος Κόλχοι τε θοώτερον ὡρµήθησαν,
οἱ δ᾽ ὑψοῦ νήσοιο κατ᾽ ἀκροτάτης ἐνέοντο
τηλόθεν.
Filled with joy, and leaving behind in this very place the son of Lykos,
They voyaged over the sea with sails spread wide,
Gazing out at the mountains of Paphlagonia, but they did not
Round Karambis, since the gales and the gleam of celestial flame
Remained, until they arrived in the mighty course of Istros.
But some of the Kolkhians, in vain pursuit
Traversed the Cobalt Rocks of Pontos,
While others in turn sought the river, those whom
Apsyrtos commanded, and turning aside entered the Beautiful Mouth.
Thus he took the lead, bringing these men over the tongue of land
Into the furthest gulf of the Ionian Sea.
For a certain island by the name of Peuke is encircled by Istros,
Triangular, projecting its breadth toward the shore,
And a narrow apex toward the river, and around it two
Courses divide. They call the one that of Narex,
And the other, on the southern side, the Beautiful Mouth. And by this route
Through in advance Apsyrtos and the Kolkhians hastened more quickly;
But north by way of the island’s tip [the Argonauts] ventured
Far (4.298-316).
The reader’s comprehension of the different routes taken by the Argonauts and by the band of
wayward Kolkhians depends upon a familiarity with the geographical framework established by
54
Apollonios in prior sections of the journey. The heroes follow the outbound route in reverse until
the point at which they cross the Euxine, confident in the wind and the blazing portent of Hekate
guiding their path. Prominent features of Pontic topography orient both Argonaut and reader and
mark the point of divergence from the Argo’s original eastbound route. The mountains of
Paphlagonia serve as a last point of correspondence between the two voyages, marked by the
poet with stress on the pathetic force of the heroic line of sight.108 This divergence is further
marked by instant deprivation of orientational aids other than οὐρανίου πυρὸς αἴγλη, a visual cue
essential to the successful transition of the Argonauts from the itinerary of Phineus to that of
Argos.109 The celestial flame that connects these two regional frameworks is not itself related
directionally to either.110 Conversely, the southbound route of the wayward Kolkhians is
dependent upon the geographical framework established in Books 1 and 2 but disappears from
the narrative upon the successful traversal of the Symplegades. The swift pursuit of Apsyrtos’
Kolkhians charting a course through virgin territory, by contrast, encourages a brief pause in the
hodological description of the various routes to accommodate a proportionally brief shift into the
quasi-cartographic descriptive mode.111
Apollonios provides the requisite spatial framework for an ambush sequence and the
subsequent inversion of the ambush upon the original ambushers by elaborating upon the
108
The Argonauts do not merely catch sight of this now-familiar geographical reference point; they wonder at the
sight of it. θηεύµενοι denotes the physical act of observation and the mental effects of perception on the self.
109
Note that Argos provides no specific instructions directing the Argonauts from Phineus’ linear framework to the
zone of own synoptic geographical description, which ends at the mouths of Istros.
110
There is even more ambiguity to the nature of the god-sent αἴγλη if one considers the sudden shift in terminology
between the initial appearance of Hekate’s portent (4.294-6, quoted below) and its mention here (4.301) and
recognizes the curiously solar features of the latter. I will discuss this further below when treating the narratological
structure of the route and its relation to spatial description.
111
See below in the discussion of the structure of the Istros route for treatment of this momentary shift in descriptive
mode.
55
connective potential of the Istros as a continental thoroughfare.112 The poet essentially duplicates
Argos’ description of the Istros’ central European bifurcation in miniature by further dividing the
river’s eastern course in two hard by the Euxine coast at the Island of Peuke. Apollonios seems
to equate this island with the delta of the Danube, which is laced with further channels and
encompasses numerous “islands” formed thereby. Other writers may have proposed a larger
number of mouths, but Apollonios’ choice of two facilitates the ambush in a simple framework
while preserving the essential shape of the delta in the triangular island Peuke, which is
elsewhere located upriver or out at sea.113 The assimilation of complex topographical features
into a geographical framework articulated textually by a system of linear relationships and
simple polygons demonstrates Apollonios’ inclination to tailor the visual component of a quasicartographical description to suit the conflict impelling a complex plot.
Following the description of Peuke, Apollonios resorts to the use of ethne as geographical
reference points in a manner akin to that which characterized his description of the Argo’s route
along the southeastern shores of the Euxine at the close of Book 2.114 The linear sequence
collapses into a catalogue of ethnonyms enumerating the tribes impacted by the novel sight of
Argo:115
εἱαµενῇσι δ᾽ ἐν ἄσπετα πώεα λεῖπον
ποιµένες ἄγραυλοι νηῶν φόβῳ, οἷά τε θῆρας
ὀσσόµενοι πόντου µεγακήτεος ἐξανιόντας.
οὐ γάρ πω ἁλίας γε πάρος ποθὶ νῆας ἴδοντο
112
For a Homeric example of geographical description as a component of the dynamics of ambush, consider the
ambush set by the suitors for Telemachos in the Odyssey and his successful avoidance of the plot, articulated in a
disjoined narrative divided between Books 4 and 15.
113
For ancient accounts of the mouths of Istros, consult the list of references compiled in Livrea 1973, p. 103. See
especially Herodotos 4.47.2 and Ephoros F157 (= Strabo 7.3.15) for a larger figure (5). Pseudo-Skylax locates the
similarly named island of Leuke in the gulf formed between the Istros and the Tauric Chersonese (68.4). Strabo, by
contrast, locates Peuke 120 stades inland from the sea, and knows of seven mouths (7.3.15).
114
See Chapter 2 Part 1 above for the equation of ethnos and chora as elements of description from the hodological
perspective in Book 2.
115
See Thalmann 2011, pp. 115-146 for a discussion of passages such as this, which constitute the integration of
Hellenic self-fashioning through a comparison with the Other as an element of spatial production.
56
οὔτ᾽ οὖν Θρήιξι µιγάδες Σκύθαι οὐδὲ Σίγυννοι,
οὔτ᾽ οὖν Tραυκένιοι, οὔθ᾽ οἱ περὶ Λαύριον ἤδη
Σίνδοι ἐρηµαῖον πεδίον µέγα ναιετάοντες.
And in the river-meadows rustic shepherds left innumerable flocks
Out of fear of the ships, considering them akin to beasts
Having emerged from the sea of monsters.
For by no means had they previously seen seagoing ships,
Neither the Skythians mingled with Thracians, nor the Sigynnoi,
Nor yet the Traukenioi, nor the Sindoi
Who already inhabited the great desolate plain around Laurion (4.316-322).
The occasion for this list of continental ethne is not explicitly linked with the sequential
articulation of the Istros route, but appeals instead to the collective altérité conveyed by the
assemblage of remote ethnonyms. So obscure indeed are some of these—whether due to errors
introduced during the manuscript tradition or poor attestation in extant literature—that their
geographical and cultural significance may be irretrievably lost to the modern reader.116 A
number are, however, attested to varying degrees in the Classical tradition. Skythians and
Thracians had served as the broad regional and ethnic designations used for continental
European northerners by the Greeks since Homer. The regions inhabited by each of these
peoples were defined with increasingly precise borders, particularly along the northwest coast of
the Euxine, an area of frequent and prolonged contact with Greek traders and settlers through the
Classical and Hellenistic periods.117
As noted above in my discussion of Argos’ geographical insights, the Istros was an
enduringly popular topographical feature for writers delineating these regions. The reverse—the
use of these tribes as reference points on Argos’ schematic representation—is less effective due
to general ignorance of the course of the Upper and Middle Danube, necessitating the projection
116
The Traukenioi are mentioned only by Stephanus of Byzantium (631.20) as neighbors of the Sindoi on the
Euxine littoral. The manuscripts all transmit “Graukenioi,” which is otherwise unattested (though it is unclear
whether Stephanus’ source for the “Traukenioi” was not in fact this very passage). Fortunately, other tribes listed in
this catalogue are better attested in the extant literature.
117
For a study of trade with the Greeks and colonial foundations in the western Euxine, see Boardman 1999, pp.
238-263.
57
of this regional relationship from the coast far inland to the mythical bifurcation of the Istros.
Unlike Argos’ description, however, the catalogue of ethne noted at 4.319-322 serve this
orientational role well. Though precise placement of these tribes in a geographical framework is
difficult if limited to the vague regional network provided in here, comparison with the location
of these peoples in other texts offers a clearer picture.
The sequence in which ethne are listed in this brief catalogue contributes more to the
geographical framework in this portion of the Istros narrative when the reader is aware of their
place in the geographical frameworks of other ancient writers. It becomes evident that
Apollonios arranges them along a route inland when these comparisons are made. Moreover, the
tribes should all have access to territory adjacent to the river, as their reaction to the strange sight
of the ships prompted the catalogue to begin with: these are communities of ποιµένες ἄγραυλοι
pasturing their sheep in the river meadows. It therefore seems that Apollonios intends them as
regional reference points replacing topographical features in the context of this condensed inland
description. As a point of comparison, Herodotos traces the course of Istros in similarly broad
strokes oriented along a linear sequence of ethnically defined regions, but anchors them in space
using the Istros’ numerous tributaries as topographical reference points.118 Apollonios instead
relies upon intertextual allusion for geographical clarification.
As noted above, both Thrace and Skythia are more clearly defined to the Greek eye along
the lowest stretches of the Istros and the coast of the Euxine. Given their sequential priority in
this catalogue, it follows that they represent the first pastoral nomads passed by the ships. They
form an initial reference point for this sequence close to the delta and extending inland to the
river’s mythical bifurcation if the insights of Argos are taken into account. Beyond this region
118
Herodotean prose is suited to this linear approach to complex riverine topography and frequently relies upon it in
order to project order over vast extents of distant territory. For his description of the Istros, see 4.48-50. For his use
of rivers elsewhere in Skythia, consult the surrounding description from 4.47-58 and Purves 2010, pp. 123-126.
58
the obscurity of each tribe increases.119 The Sigynnoi are attested by various authors in a wide
range of locations. Herodotos, in his description of Thrace, notes their place along the upper
courses of the Istros as it approaches the territory of the Enetai at the head of the Adriatic:
τὸ δὲ πρὸς βορέω τῆς χώρης ἔτι ταύτης οὐδεὶς ἔχει φράσαι τὸ ἀτρεκὲς οἵτινες εἰσὶ
ἄνθρωποι οἰκέοντες αὐτήν, ἀλλὰ τὰ πέρην ἤδη τοῦ Ἴστρου ἔρηµος χώρη φαίνεται
ἐοῦσα καὶ ἄπειρος. µούνους δὲ δύναµαι πυθέσθαι οἰκέοντας πέρην τοῦ Ἴστρου
ἀνθρώπους τοῖσι οὔνοµα εἶναι Σιγύννας, ἐσθῆτι δὲ χρεωµένους Μηδικῇ: τοὺς δὲ
ἵππους αὐτῶν εἶναι λασίους ἅπαν τὸ σῶµα ἐπὶ πέντε δακτύλους τὸ βάθος τῶν
τριχῶν, µικροὺς δὲ καὶ σιµοὺς καὶ ἀδυνάτους ἄνδρας φέρειν, ζευγνυµένους δὲ ὑπ᾽
ἅρµατα εἶναι ὀξυτάτους: ἁρµατηλατέειν δὲ πρὸς ταῦτα τοὺς ἐπιχωρίους. κατήκειν
δὲ τούτων τοὺς οὔρους ἀγχοῦ Ἐνετῶν τῶν ἐν τῷ Ἀδρίῃ. εἶναι δὲ Μήδων σφέας
ἀποίκους λέγουσι. ὅκως δὲ οὗτοι Μήδων ἄποικοι γεγόνασι, ἐγὼ µὲν οὐκ ἔχω
ἐπιφράσασθαι, γένοιτο δ᾽ ἂν πᾶν ἐν τῷ µακρῷ χρόνῳ. Σιγύννας δ᾽ ὦν καλέουσι
Δίγυες οἱ ἄνω ὑπὲρ Μασσαλίης οἰκέοντες τοὺς καπήλους, Κύπριοι δὲ τὰ δόρατα.
Regarding the area to the north of this region none are able to demonstrate exactly what men
inhabit it, and regarding the other side of the Istros the territory appears uninhabited and endless.
But I have been able to learn that the name of one group of men living across the Istros is the
Sigunnai, and that they wear Median clothing, that their horses are shaggy all over their bodies to
a length of five finger spans, that these are small and short-snouted and unable to bear men, but
that when yoked together to chariots they are exceedingly swift, and that owing to these
characteristics the natives drive chariots. Their borders extend to the Enetai on the Adriatic. They
say that they are themselves Median colonists. But how they came to be Median colonists I am
unable to address; indeed, anything may come to pass given a sufficiently long time. But the
Ligyes who dwell inland above Massalia call their hucksters Sigynnai, while the Cypriots call
their spears this (5.9).
This heavily ethnographic passage corresponds well with Apollonios’ placement of the Sigynnoi
west of the Thracians and Skythians. However, an exact correspondence between their locations
in Herodotos and Apollonios is impossible given the critical difference in their placement of the
sources of Istros. Herodotos, in an uncharacteristic bow to archaic concepts of symmetrical
geography, suggests a source in the far west of the oikoumene near the unidentified city of
Pyrene among the Keltoi and Kynetes to reflect his idea that the Istros is a European counterpart
to the Nile, the sources of which he places in the far west of Libya.120 Apollonios, by contrast,
locates its sources in the far north among the Rhipaian Mountains. If Apollonios relies on the
119
The rough waters of the Iron Gates were likely a significant obstacle for early attempts at navigating upstream to
the gentler country of the Middle Danube.
120
For Herodotos’ discussion of the sources of Istros and comparison with the Nile, see 2.33-34.
59
testimony of Herodotos here for the relative location of the Sigynnoi, he must do so without
recourse to the geographical framework established by the historian. This offers insight into the
compositional strategy employed by Apollonios in the construction of the Istros route. He
established a basic geography of the river, drawing heavily on mythological accounts and
adapting more recent information to facilitate the river’s use as an escape route in the narrative
context.121 Reference to the Traukenioi and Sindoi are similarly severed from precise
topographical placement. In the case of the former the modern reader is entirely without recourse
to external means of geographical contextualization due to the apparent lack of surviving
attestations of this ethnonym.122 Apollonios links the latter, by contrast, to the unidentified
toponym Laurion, a name pregnant with Classical associations but likely of central European
origin.123 Though the modern reader lacks sufficient ancient testimony to contextualize
Apollonios’ placement of this tribe along the Istros, it appears that he has again negotiated
between variant traditions of the tribe’s location, else he would not include a temporal element
(ἤδη) to their association with Laurion.
Apollonios completes the Istros segment by detailing the river’s course from its mythical
bifurcation to the Adriatic. He resumes the reliance on specific, visually prominent topographical
features after the obscure ethnographical orientation quoted above. The Kolkhians of Apsyrtos
retain the descriptive focalization of this passage:
αὐτὰρ ἐπεί τ᾽ Ἄγγουρον ὄρος καὶ ἄπωθεν ἐόντα
Ἀγγούρου ὄρεος σκόπελον πάρα Καυλιακοῖο,
ᾧ πέρι δὴ σχίζων Ἴστρος ῥόον ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα
121
cf. Pseudo-Skylax 20.
I exclude Stephanus of Byzantium from consideration given the likelihood of his debt to Apollonios for this
ethnonym.
123
The historically significant Athenian region of Laurion and its local silver mines are the most obvious Classical
parallel to this name. However, a toponym geographically closer (though chronologically distant) is the Imperial
Roman frontier encampment Lauriacum, located on the Upper Danube among the foothills of the Alps. This
identification corresponds with the hypothetical westward progression of locations in this catalogue despite
Apollonios’ unusual description of the mountainous environs as ἐρηµαῖον πεδίον µέγα.
122
60
βάλλει ἁλός, πεδίον τε τὸ Λαύριον ἠµείψαντο,
δή ῥα τότε Κρονίην Κόλχοι ἅλαδ᾽ ἐκπροµολόντες,
πάντῃ, µή σφε λάθοιεν, ὑπετµήξαντο κελεύθους.
But proceeding there beside Mount Angouron and thence
From Mount Angouron alongside the headland of Kauliakos
Around which Istros divides its course and this way and that
Enters the sea, they traversed the Laurian Plain,
Then the Kolkhians, debouching into the Kronian Sea
In every direction, lest [the Argonauts] escape, cut off their routes (4.323-328).
Apollonios specifies the relationship between various features of the landscape passed by the
Kolkhians, offering a precise sequence that clarifies the geographical framework obfuscated by
the preceding catalogue of ethne. The identification of these topographical features is difficult
again given the lack of extant testimony, but the contours illustrated here correspond with the
contrast between the vast Hungarian Plain of the Middle Danube and the mountainous environs
of the Iron Gates downstream.124 The brief description condenses a vast extent of riverine terrain
and deprives the journey any temporal markers that would indicate the passage of time. The
furious pace of the ships and the condensed geography contrast markedly with the detailed
narrative of the outbound itinerary, conveying the urgent plight of the heroes at this stage of the
voyage. The descriptive content of the hodological narrative are thus altered in the tight confines
of the river to accommodate the narrative’s tonal shift.
Having treated the topographical detail of Apollonios’ account of the Istros route, I will
now examine the narratological structure of the route and its several shifts in perspective. As
noted in the discussion of topographical detail orienting the Istros route above, a significant
descriptive gap occurs in the space between the departure of the Argonauts from the mouth of the
Halys River and their arrival at the Istros. Besides separating these segments of the return
voyage, the gap divides the geographical frameworks described by Phineus and Argos. The
124
Precisely what location along the course of the Lower Danube inspired Apollonios’ description of the mythical
bifurcation is another matter of speculative debate. The Danube lacks large tributaries and offshoots on its eastbound
course between the Carpathian and Balkan Mountains.
61
heroes have no verbally transmitted directives with which to chart a course across the open
expanses of the Euxine, even after Argos provides his learned description of the European river
systems that offer a potential escape route. The lack of explicit, embedded directions generates
ambiguity in the mind of the reader as well. Indeed, Apollonios’ readers are set adrift in the same
conceptual void as that faced by the heroes at this juncture, bound in narrative time to the heroic
perspective. In place of verbal guidance, an appeased Hekate offers a visual aid to lead the way:
a fiery comet tracing a linear course through the sky. The appearance of this celestial path at a
transitional point in the narrative between sea and river corresponds with the function of
Prometheus’ eagle at the conclusion of Book 2.125 The visual cue of this heavenly phenomenon
prepares the reader for the subtly shifting perspective that Apollonios will deploy in the ensuing
riverine descriptive framework.
The poet narrates the traversal of Istros in a brief passage remarkable for its diverse
narrative and descriptive structure.126 Hekate’s comet reintroduces the shifting descriptive
standpoint deployed along the Phasis and treated above. This feature of Apollonian narration
permeates the Istros itinerary, covering the brief narrative from multiple perspectives. The
itinerary divides into three distinct hodological experiences at the outset, following the course of
the Argonauts as well as two groups of Kolkhians. The range of epic geography covered by this
brief tripartite description is vast, drawing upon the established framework constructed over the
course of the narrative and supplementing this with additional material that cues a further
descriptive shift toward the quasi-cartographic perspective. The view from above facilitates a
schematic presentation of the river delta requisite for comprehending the means by which the
125
See Chapter 2, Part 1.
Because I have quoted the passage in full over the course of my preceding discussion, I refrain from lengthy
quotations in this section and refer my readers to these prior quotations except in cases that demand immediate
consultation of the Greek.
126
62
Kolkhians arrive in the Adriatic ahead of the Argonauts. Following this synoptic description,
focalization again shifts, never remaining in the same space for more than a few lines. The route
is described piecemeal from multiple perspectives, generating a conglomerate description that
conveys distinct thematic insights from each perspective adopted.127 The perspective of the
Argonauts themselves—so long the descriptive focalizer in hodological portions of the
narrative—is lost along the way. This strange feature of the description augments the dynamic of
the ambush, revealing to the reader the details of plot and landscape arrayed in force against the
success of the heroes’ return.
3.2 Eridanos: Knowledge, Perspective, and the Loss of Agency
This brief final portion of Chapter 3 examines the description of the Argonauts’ journey
up Eridanos and the corresponding deprivation of navigational agency as the heroes despair at
the horrors of kin-slaughter perpetrated in the Adriatic. Like the Istros voyage, vast swaths of
terrestrial space are traversed in a series of short passages removed from any sense of temporal
progression and spatially contextualized using a fusion of mythical and real-world topographical
reference-points. Apollonios exploits the shifting descriptive standpoint to striking effect in
laying bare the feverish landscape traversed by this final segment of the Argo’s route along the
world’s northern fringes.
Apollonios’ presentation of the Eridanos river system vacillates between spatial
description and mythological excursus in a manner akin to the narrative of the Argo’s approach
to Kolkhis and description of Prometheus’ torments. This thesis is concerned with the integration
127
The description transitions between the perspectives of the hypothetical omniscient narrator describing the shape
of the epic’s world, the perspective of the Kolkhians hastening west to and applying an apparent mastery of
geographical knowledge to effect their ambush, and the perspective of the distant Other viewing the curious display
from without, frightened at the novel sight.
63
of multidimensional approaches to geographical description and must pass over much of
Apollonios’ frequent references to the transmission of mythological information. However, the
integration of multiple mythological traditions into the Eridanos voyage and the privileging of
this information at the expense of a sequential enumeration of topographical features indicates a
change in thematic emphasis that must be addressed as it pertains to the narrative structure. The
route taken by the Argonauts along the shores of the Adriatic following the murder of Apsyrtos
is filled with topographical detail. The sudden shift away from this descriptive mode presents the
Eridanos as a place rather than a linear space. Description focuses on features of the atmosphere
instead of features of the landscape:
ἡ δ᾽ ἔσσυτο πολλὸν ἐπιπρὸ
λαίφεσιν: ἐς δ᾽ ἔβαλον µύχατον ῥόον Ἠριδανοῖο,
ἔνθα ποτ᾽ αἰθαλόεντι τυπεὶς πρὸς στέρνα κεραυνῷ
ἡµιδαὴς Φαέθων πέσεν ἅρµατος Ἠελίοιο
λίµνης ἐς προχοὰς πολυβενθέος: ἡ δ᾽ ἔτι νῦν περ
τραύµατος αἰθοµένοιο βαρὺν ἀνακηκίει ἀτµόν.
οὐδέ τις ὕδωρ κεῖνο διὰ πτερὰ κοῦφα τανύσσας
οἰωνὸς δύναται βαλέειν ὕπερ, ἀλλὰ µεσηγὺς
φλογµῷ ἐπιθρώσκει πεποτηµένος. ἀµφὶ δὲ κοῦραι
Ἡλιάδες ταναῇσιν ἀείµεναι αἰγείροισιν,
µύρονται κινυρὸν µέλεαι γόον: ἐκ δὲ φαεινὰς
ἠλέκτρου λιβάδας βλεφάρων προχέουσιν ἔραζε:
αἱ µέν τ᾽ ἠελίῳ ψαµάθοις ἔπι τερσαίνονται,
εὖτ᾽ ἂν δὲ κλύζῃσι κελαινῆς ὕδατα λίµνης
ἠιόνας πνοιῇ πολυηχέος ἐξ ἀνέµοιο,
δὴ τότ᾽ ἐς Ἠριδανὸν προκυλίνδεται ἀθρόα πάντα
κυµαίνοντι ῥόῳ.
She sped far ahead
With the sails, and entered the innermost current of Eridanos.
Where Phaethon, stricken in the chest with blazing lightning
Fell half-cooked from the chariot of the Sun
Into the courses of the deep lagoon, which even now
Spouts forth a heavy mist from his burning wound.
Nor is any bird soaring across that water on nimble wings
Able to traverse it, but flitting over the middle
Plunges down at the heat. And the Heliad maids
Singing among tapering poplars
Motionlessly emit a plaintive wail. And gleaming
Drops of amber they pour from their eyelids,
Which are dried by the sun upon the sand;
64
But when the waters of the black lagoon wash over
The banks in a gale from the keening wind,
Then in heaps they all tumble forth into Eridanos
With the raging current (4.595-611).
This deeply allusive spatial description engages each of the reader’s senses through the heroic
perspective, generating a rich and multifaceted atmosphere. Yet the deep lagoon lacks any
specific topographical features whereby the lavish vignette might have been contextualized in a
geographical framework. Apollonios temporarily abandons the linear framework of an itinerary
to present a caustic atmosphere as a pathetic foil to the Argonauts’ own despair.
Apollonios resumes the description of this riverine voyage to introduce the nexus of the
three-headed waterway at the source of Eridanos. In doing so, the poet fulfills a geographical
fantasy by uniting the headwaters of three major rivers.128 Across this fantastical transit route
Apollonios draws the Argo into the alien landscape at world’s end:
ἐκ δὲ τόθεν Ῥοδανοῖο βαθὺν ῥόον εἰσεπέρησαν,
ὅς τ᾽ εἰς Ἠριδανὸν µετανίσσεται, ἄµµιγα δ᾽ ὕδωρ
ἐν ξυνοχῇ βέβρυκε κυκώµενον. αὐτὰρ ὁ γαίης
ἐκ µυχάτης, ἵνα τ᾽ εἰσὶ πύλαι καὶ ἐδέθλια Νυκτός,
ἔνθεν ἀπορνύµενος, τῇ µέν τ᾽ ἐπερεύγεται ἀκτὰς
Ὠκεανοῦ, τῇ δ᾽ αὖτε µετ᾽ Ἰονίην ἅλα βάλλει,
τῇ δ᾽ ἐπὶ Σαρδόνιον πέλαγος καὶ ἀπείρονα κόλπον
ἑπτὰ διὰ στοµάτων ἱεὶς ῥόον. ἐκ δ᾽ ἄρα τοῖο
λίµνας εἰσέλασαν δυσχείµονας, αἵ τ᾽ ἀνὰ Κελτῶν
ἤπειρον πέπτανται ἀθέσφατον. ἔνθα κεν οἵ γε
ἄτῃ ἀεικελίῃ πέλασαν: φέρε γάρ τις ἀπορρὼξ
κόλπον ἐς Ὠκεανοῖο, τὸν οὐ προδαέντες ἔµελλον
εἰσβαλέειν, τόθεν οὔ κεν ὑπότροποι ἐξεσάωθεν.
ἀλλ᾽ Ἥρη σκοπέλοιο καθ᾽ Ἑρκυνίου ἰάχησεν
οὐρανόθεν προθοροῦσα, φόβῳ δ᾽ ἐτίναχθεν ἀυτῆς
πάντες ὁµῶς: δεινὸν γὰρ ἐπὶ µέγας ἔβραχεν αἰθήρ.
ἂψ δὲ παλιντροπόωντο θεᾶς ὕπο, καί ῥ᾽ ἐνόησαν
τὴν οἶµον τῇ πέρ τε καὶ ἔπλετο νόστος ἰοῦσι.
δηναιοὶ δ᾽ ἀκτὰς ἁλιµυρέας εἰσαφίκοντο,
Ἥρης ἐννεσίῃσι, δι᾽ ἔθνεα µυρία Κελτῶν
καὶ Λιγύων περόωντες ἀδήιοι: ἀµφὶ γὰρ αἰνὴν
128
Apollonios identifies the Eridanos and Rhodanos as branches of this mythical river system but leaves the
northernmost branch without a name. Given this branch’s northbound course and terminus at Okeanos, the
description suggests an early attestation of the River Rhine.
65
ἠέρα χεῦε θεὰ πάντ᾽ ἤµατα νισσοµένοισι.
Thence they embarked upon the deep course of the Rhodanos,
Which passes along into Eridanos, and stirred into confusion
The water roars in union. For from innermost earth
Where are the gates and threshold of Night,
Stirred thence it issues forth in one direction to the headlands
Of Okeanos, and in another it enters the Ionian Sea,
And in another directs its current toward the Sardinian Sea and the immeasurable gulf
Through seven mouths. But from here
They entered the wintery lakes, which extend north to the
Unutterable territory of the Keltoi: there they would
Have approached in unseemly ignorance. For there is a certain offshoot
To the gulf of Okeanos, which at unawares they were about to
Enter, whence their return would not have been saved,
But Hera shouted from the Herkynian promontory,
Springing down from heaven; nevertheless, all were shaken with fear of her,
For the high ether resounded frightfully.
But they were turned back by the goddess and recognized
The way preceding by which their homecoming would come to pass.
They passed through the salt-surging promontories alive
At Hera’s urging, continuing through the numberless tribes of Keltoi
and Ligyes unscathed, for the goddess poured out a tremendous
Mist for them as they advanced throughout the day (4.627-648).
The narrative returns to a mixture of hodological and quasi-cartographical approaches to the
route of the Argo as the poet articulates an itinerary through this landscape. The integration of
these descriptive standpoints is complete: each branch of the river system is described in relation
to the central nexus and their termini on the shores of various bodies of water, and along each the
Argonauts travel for at least a short distance, including the nameless ἀπορρώξ that nearly leads
the heroes to their doom in the gulf of Okeanos. The readers are privileged with knowledge
accessible only to Hera and the other immortals from their perspective in heaven, producing brief
moments of dramatic irony as the heroes attempt to navigate the system without knowing its
contours.
After a brief delay Hera intervenes and provides the requisite knowledge and divine
protection to ensure the heroes’ nostos, curiously applied in this geographical context. This term
cannot refer to the heroes’ path back to Thessaly: many trials lie ahead of them before they
achieve the end of their journey. What Apollonios implies here is a link between the
66
Mediterranean and a decentralized idea of the Greek homeland: Hera speeds the Argonauts
“home” to the oikoumene, the vast inhabited world in which the heroes regain agency over their
journey by a familiarity with the long sea-lanes of the Mediterranean. The stark contrast in
geographical mastery of the northern landscape between reader and hero, achieved by a
description that aligns the perspectives of reader and immortal, is permitted to revert to
equilibrium upon the Argo’s return through the mouths of Rhodanos, the gates of Apollonios’
oikoumene.
67
4. Conclusion
The roving course of this analysis has traversed a diverse array of geographical
frameworks and charted the contours of Apollonios’ shifting descriptive strategies in the context
of each major river system along the Argo’s route. The methodological meanders complicating
its argumentation merit a brief recapitulation here at the terminus of this journey.
Chapter 1 introduced the topic of geographical innovation in the Argonautika by
contextualizing Apollonios’ representation of the Argo’s route in the literary and geographical
traditions of antiquity. Apollonios expanded the treatment of the journey by elaborating on the
particulars of the itinerary to and from Kolkhis. From a narratological standpoint, Apollonios
adopted shifting descriptive modes to a degree unrivalled in previous extant articulations of the
route. The poet therefore enriches the mythical voyage on two levels by engaging with the
traditions of both geographical detail and narratological strategy.
Chapter 2 explored Apollonios’ integration of a riverine organizational principle into the
geographical framework of the journey and its relationship to the descriptive strategies noted
above. The use of rivers as points of focalization expand the range of territory encompassed
within Apollonios’ geographical framework. Moreover, they provide a means of shifting
descriptive standpoint between the hodological experience of the heroes and the quasicartographical panorama of the narrator’s omniscient perspective. Chapter 2 dwells on the
articulation of these descriptions as internal extensions of story space cued by stimuli perceived
from the heroic perspective.
Chapter 3 continued this exploration of Apollonios’ river-oriented representations of
space by turning to the use of rivers as conduits within the network of places constituting the
epic’s internal geography. The Istros serves as an example of a river covered in two forms of
68
geographical exegesis, one in the context of an embedded narrative and one following the path of
the ship itself. The latter description builds upon the framework established by the former and
exploits the reader’s familiarity with this network to leap between several descriptive standpoints
in the context of relatively brief travel narrative. In contrast, the description of the journey up
Eridanos into the confines of Northern Europe exploits the unity of spatial description supplied
by the omniscient narrator and plays on the denial of this information to the heroes. The thematic
significance of this contrast demonstrates Apollonios’ employment of geographical knowledge
as a device of the epic plot.
The varied focus of each chapter offers a survey of Apollonian geography as a twofold
contribution to the tradition of spatial description in antiquity. Examination of Apollonios’
representation of rivers in both detail and method of the geographical description reveals the
depth of the poet’s capacity for conceptualizing vast territories and the finesse with which he
weaves the exegesis of story space into the epic’s narrative context. Beyond simply echoing the
advance of geographical interests to a terrestrial perspective in Early Hellenistic Alexandria, the
Argonautika demonstrates that this fresh continental perspective is capable of accommodating
the thematic dimensions of an epic voyage with as much power as the boundless seas of Archaic
epic.
The field of narratological analysis, and specifically the focus on descriptive strategy that
I have endeavored to promote in this study, awaits comprehensive application to the
geographical discourse attested in other ancient writers. The analytical model articulated in the
introduction to this study is intentionally broad: Apollonios and the Argonautika are but a single
data point in a vast—but finite—corpus of texts of sufficient length and complexity to convey a
spatial framework. Moreover, the broad scope of this model may be honed to a keen edge and
69
trained on questions yet more specific than the matter of rivers in Apollonian epic. Ideally, this
thesis will encourage the further development of a philology of spatial description: every text
might undergo a still more stringent analysis of syntactical and stylistic features. This data would
complement the comprehensive stylistic analyses already undertaken by proponents of
narratology and spatial studies. Only through such a synthesis of methodological skillsets will a
history of geography in the Classical tradition be forged for the new millennium.
70
Works Cited
Bichler, R. 2015. “Persian Geography and the Ionians: Herodotus.” in Brills Companion to
Ancient Geography, edited by S. Bianchetti, M. R. Cataudella, and H.-J. Gehrke, 3-20.
Leiden: Brill.
Boardman, J. 1999. The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade. London: Thames
and Hudson.
Braund, D. 1994. Georgia in Antiquity. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Bucciantini, V. 2015. “Geographical Description and Historical Narrative in the Tradition of
Alexander’s Expedition.” in Brills Companion to Ancient Geography, edited by S.
Bianchetti, M. R. Cataudella, and H.-J. Gehrke, 98-109. Leiden: Brill.
Bunbury, E. H. 1959. A History of Ancient Geography Volume I. New York: Dover.
Clare, R. J. 2002. The Path of the Argo: Language, Imagery and Narrative in the Argonautica of
Apollonius Rhodius. Cambridge.
Cuypers, M. P. 2004. “Apollonius of Rhodes.” in Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in
Ancient Greek Literature, edited by I. J. F. de Jong, R. Nünlist, and A. Bowie, 43-62.
Leiden: Brill.
Danek, G. 2009. Apollonius as an (anti-)Homeric Narrator: Time and Space in the Argonautica.”
in Narratology and Interpretation, edited by J. Grethlein and A. Rengakos, 275-293.
Berlin: de Gruyter.
de Jong, I. J. F. 2012., ed. Space in Ancient Greek Literature. Leiden: Brill.
de Jong, I. J. F., R. Nünlist, and A. Bowie, eds. 2004. Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in
Ancient Greek Literature. Leiden: Brill.
Delage, E. 1930. La géographie dans les Argonautiques d’Apollonius de Rhodes. Bibliothèque
des universités du Midi no. 19. Bordeaux: Feret.
Dougherty, C. 2001. The Raft of Odysseus: the Ethnographic Imagination of Homer’s Odyssey.
Oxford.
Dueck, D. 2012. Geography in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge.
Elliger, W. 1975. Die Darstellung der Landschaft in der griechischen Dichtung. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
71
Finkelberg, M. 1998. “The Geography of the Prometheus Vinctus.” Rheinisches Museum 141:
119-141.
Fränkel, H. 1968. Noten zu den Argonautika des Apollonios. Munich: C. H. Beck’sche
Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Fusillo, M. 1985. Il tempo delle Argonautiche. Un analisi del racconto in Apollonio Rodio.
Rome: Edizioni dell'Ateneo.
Gehrke, H.-J. 2015. “The ‘Revolution’ of Alexander the Great: Old and New in the World’s
View.” in Brill’s Companion to Ancient Geography, edited by S. Bianchetti, M. R.
Cataudella, and H.-J. Gehrke, 78-97. Leiden: Brill.
Harder, M. A. 1994. “Travel Descriptions in the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius.” in Travel
Fact and Travel Fiction, edited by Z. R. W. M. von Martels, 18-29. Leiden: Brill.
Hartog, F. 1988. The Mirror of Herodotus: the Representation of the Other in the Writing of
History. Translated by Janet Lloyd. Berkeley: University of California Press.
-------- 2001. Memories of Odysseus. Translated by Janet Lloyd. Chicago.
Herter, H. 1973. Apollonios, der Epiker. RE Suppl. 13, 15-56.
Hunter, R., ed. 2015. Apollonius of Rhodes: Argonautica Book IV. Cambridge Greek and Latin
Classics. Cambridge.
Janni, P. 1984. La Mappa e Il Periplo: Cartografia antica e spazio odologico. Rome: Giorgio
Bretschneider Editore.
Klooster, J. J. H. 2012. “Apollonius of Rhodes.” in Space in Ancient Greek Literature, edited by
I. J. F. de Jong, 55-76. Leiden: Brill.
Malkin, I. 1998. The Returns of Odysseus: Colonization and Ethnicity. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Meyer, D. 2008. “Apollonius as a Hellenistic Geographer.” In Brill’s Companion to Apollonius
Rhodius, edited by Theodore D. Papanghelis and Antonios Rengakos, 267-286. Leiden:
Brill.
Paasen, C. van. 1957. The Classical Tradition of Geography. Groningen.
Pearson, L. 1938. “Apollonius of Rhodes and the Old Geographers.” American Journal of
Philology 59.4, 443-459.
Purves, A. 2010. Space and Time in Ancient Greek Narrative. Cambridge.
Romm, J. S. 1992. The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought. Princeton.
72
Rood, T. 2012. “Thucydides.” in Space in Ancient Greek Literature, edited by I. J. F. de Jong,
141-160. Leiden: Brill.
Rubio, S. 1992. Geography and the Representation of Space in the Argonautica of Apollonios of
Rhodes. PhD diss., University of California at San Diego.
Shipley, G., ed. 2011. Pseudo-Skylax’ Periplous: The Circumnavigation of the Inhabited World.
Exeter: Bristol Phoenix Press.
Thalmann, W. G. 2011. Apollonius of Rhodes and the Spaces of Hellenism. Oxford.
Thomson, J. O. 1948. History of Ancient Geography. Cambridge.
Vian, F., ed. 1974-1981. Apollonios de Rhodes vols. 1-3. Paris.
Williams, M. F. 1991. Landscape in the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius. Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang.
73